Congressional UFO Report

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Congressional UFO Report > Page 2

Page 2 of 2

10-06-2021 05:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14440)	gfm7175 wrote:I won't refer to you as such because ... ... because you are a nice guy. ... because you are forgiving. ... because deep down you knew I was in error but were confident that I would realize my mistake. You just wanted to let me work through it myself. Thank you. I appreciate your patience. gfm7175 wrote: I'd then be ignoring the fact that I basically did the same thing that you did ... Nope. Twas I who led you astray, not you leading me astray. The finger still points back to me. I'll make a concerted effort to be more careful next time.
10-06-2021 06:34
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Dude it was NOT descending. Look, I have two perspectives to offer you: 1) My Unofficial Response: Yes, s/he is absolutely descending. Look, I realize that in your quest for a bona fide UFO, you are willing to convince yourself of details that were not the case ... because we all love a good story, especially one of our preferred genre. Feel free to just forget that I ever said anything. Nonetheless, go out to a skydiving club jump one of these days and bring yourself up to speed on just how long it takes for those suckers to land. I have taken my children out to watch exactly that and they sat in wonder looking up at the sky, at the divers, batch after batch. It's a great thing you can do for kids ... and for yourself. You are the one convincing yourself of details that were not the case if you think this is a descending sky diver parachuting from a plane. 2) My Official Response: You have a truly amazing UFO video there. The government needs to see this right away. Humanity should thank its lucky stars that you were there to capture this spectacular and otherwise indescribable event on video. I hate to think just how close we as a species came to missing this monumental event. Spongy Iris, on behalf of everyone everywhere, thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. You're welcome Spongy Iris wrote: I pointed the camera at the same spot for more than 4 minutes. 1) My Unofficial Response: You need a lot more time than that and no, I watched your video and you definitely were not pointing the camera at the same spot the entire time. One thing I like to do is watch los parapentes in Miraflores (Lima), Peru. They fly around and fly around and fly around and fly some more. They aren't very high at all and if you think they go through all that trouble to fly for only four minutes then you really need to get out to a skydivers club and watch them jump. What do you see in this video? (Note the time. Note the low altitude) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl_EI-cYltA In that video, they are paragliding, not parachuting. Paragliders can stay up for long periods. Quite soon after I put down the camera, the object moved south. It appeared smaller and difficult to hone in on with a smart phone in broad daylight. I chased it up the nearest hill. In 6 minutes time it had moved south. Then 6 minutes later it disappeared into the horizon out of my range of sight, not landing, but shrinking in size until it could not be seen. It traveled too far too fast to possibly be a paraglider. The closest hill to paraglide from, to where this was filmed, is about 10 miles directly north, Mount Diablo, CA. Maximum wind gusts were 10 miles per hour atop Mount Diablo on this afternoon, coming from the north, blowing southward. This low of a wind speed might not even be enough to launch an experienced paraglider off a hillside. 2) My Official Response: You are spot on. There's no way that could be any sort of parachute. You had that camera locked down on that same exact spot for more than four minutes and clearly it wasn't going anywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if the technology used came from somewhere a lot further away than Peru, if you know what I mean. I was holding a smart phone up, maybe 60 degrees, as still as I could with middle finger and thumb, trying to make sure the object was in view in broad daylight when the screen is actually pretty difficult to see. The angle I was pointing up at barely changed. Please excuse me for not being able to be more still. Spongy Iris wrote: The movements of the camera were minute. 1) My Unofficial Response:: Think back to your high school geometry. At long distances even minute angular rotation results in a very large positional difference. You nonetheless had a few large camera movements as well as many minute ones. No large camera movements were made until the very end when I put down the phone. The minute movements may have appeared large to you, probably because that object was so far away, even minute movements appeared to move its distance on screen by a lot. 2) My Official Response:: You don't have to tell me. Your camera didn't move at all. It was like you had it on a tripod or something. That UFO was just hovering there, doing some funky things. Wow! Indeed. Did you see how smooth it's spiral maneuver was?? Why don't you try to find me video of a paraglider spiraling that smoothly, filmed from the ground, for more than 4 minutes, from a position as locked down as I was?? You shant find it... Spongy Iris wrote:Does it look like these sky divers could hover at the same altitude for 4 and a half minutes doing spirals? 1) My Unofficial Response:: You saw the video above, right? Can they fly around for close to fifteen minutes and land at the same altitude at which they took off? Paragliders can't spiral that smoothly. And even if paragliders can spiral, you couldn't track it's spiral maneuver from the ground with a smart phone, locked on the same position for 5 minutes. As stated earlier the wind was not strong enough at the time of my video to carry a paraglider as far and fast as this object was seen moving. 2) My Official Response:: You're right, it's just not possible. No one is saying that your UFO is anything other than mesmerizing. I presume you have already contacted ODNI and provided copies of your video, yes? Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Washington, DC 20511 Phone Number: 703-733-8600 Once again, great job! Well done. Nah just YouTube, Blogspot, and a few chat rooms. Thank you sir! Edited on 10-06-2021 07:27
10-06-2021 08:54
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14440)	Spongy Iris wrote:You are the one convincing yourself of details that were not the case if you think this is a descending sky diver parachuting from a plane. It's a person with a parachute. Spongy Iris wrote: In that video, they are paragliding, not parachuting. Paragliders can stay up for long periods. The principles of paragliding parachutes work exactly the same as skydiving parachutes. Spongy Iris wrote:Quite soon after I put down the camera, the object moved south. You saw my video. They can drive around (steer) and go in all different directions ... just not all at the same time. Spongy Iris wrote:It traveled too far too fast to possibly be a paraglider. This is a false statement. This is one of those nonexisting details of which you are trying to convince yourself. Spongy Iris wrote:Please excuse me for not being able to be more still. You are human. There is only so much that you can do. You did a good job anyway. Spongy Iris wrote: IBDaMann wrote:Think back to your high school geometry. At long distances even minute angular rotation results in a very large positional difference. The minute movements may have appeared large to you, probably because that object was so far away, even minute movements appeared to move its distance on screen by a lot. Yes, that is what I meant by the geometry reference. Spongy Iris wrote:Why don't you try to find me video of a paraglider spiraling that smoothly, filmed from the ground, for more than 4 minutes, from a position as locked down as I was?? The ability of paragliders to spiral smoothly is not dependent upon the number of such occasions that were filmed from the ground or upon the number of videos that I can find. However, I will leave you with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pZvMxw1aoo So allow me to summarize, your UFO video is incredible and I am certain the government will prominently feature it in the annual UFO report. Your video might even serve as the impetus needed to create an Intergovernmental Panel on UFOs (IPUFO). You rock!
10-06-2021 09:51
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Spongy Iris wrote:It traveled too far too fast to possibly be a paraglider. This is a false statement. This is one of those nonexisting details of which you are trying to convince yourself. If it was a paraglider, it had to launch in sub par wind conditions, and then fly 10 miles south from Mt Diablo to reach me. This couldn't have happened in less than 2 hours given the wind speed that day, if even possible. Then it stopped just above me, to do spirals in the same spot for 5 minutes. Then it flew further south out of sight disappearing into the horizon in about 12 minutes. Did you hear the wind in my video? Average wind speed was probably less than 5 miles per hour. In about 12 minutes it could not have traveled more than 1 mile south. Where could this paraglider possibly have been going??? Clearly it knows the way to San Jose... The ability of paragliders to spiral smoothly is not dependent upon the number of such occasions that were filmed from the ground or upon the number of videos that I can find. However, I will leave you with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pZvMxw1aoo That is the best video I have seen yet. That must be the most talented paraglider in the world. However, it is only 1 minute long. The paraglider descends alot, and lands. And the spiraling and looping motion is jerky, not smooth. As I said, you shant find it... Edited on 10-06-2021 09:52
10-06-2021 17:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14440)	Spongy Iris wrote:If it was a paraglider, it had to launch in sub par wind conditions, and then fly 10 miles south from Mt Diablo to reach me. Sky divers have many options, not just the one you mentioned. Spongy Iris wrote: This couldn't have happened in less than 2 hours given the wind speed that day, if even possible. ... and the earth is warmer than it otherwise should be. For some reason I have difficulty finding just the right sarcastic response when someone tells me that one of his observations couldn't possibly have happened. Spongy Iris wrote:Then it stopped just above me, to do spirals in the same spot for 5 minutes. Spongy Iris wrote: Did you hear the wind in my video? Yes I heard the wind in your video. Refer back to my parapentes video. There was plenty to provide lift for the parachutist to drive around and around for as long as he wanted. Spongy Iris wrote: Where could this paraglider possibly have been going??? Clearly it knows the way to San Jose... In summary, clearly there is interest in San José that piqued whoever was controlling that UFO. I'm certain that what you were witnessing was the area being scanned/surveilled before searching for something of interest in San José. Perhaps this is new Russian or Chinese technology for spying on the US and thankfully you were on watch and were able to catch it in the act ... or this is something alien and there's something going on in San José that the government doesn't want us to know about. Both are distinct possibilities.

10-06-2021 20:43
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:If it was a paraglider, it had to launch in sub par wind conditions, and then fly 10 miles south from Mt Diablo to reach me. Sky divers have many options, not just the one you mentioned. Well today I confirmed 3 paraglider pilots logged about 60 km each from MT Diablo that day. I'm trying to contact the 3 of them to see if this thing can't be identified...
10-06-2021 22:43
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14440)	Spongy Iris wrote:Well today I confirmed 3 paraglider pilots logged about 60 km each from MT Diablo that day. You are to be commended. Spongy Iris wrote:I'm trying to contact the 3 of them to see if this thing can't be identified... You're trying to contact the 3 of them to see if this person/thing can be identified. You might find that one of the three will tell you that it is s/he. Remember to ask about the color of the parachute. Good luck in your research. Keep me posted.
11-06-2021 03:22
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Paraglider might be an option, but there are a lot of other ultralight and experimental personal planes. Flying cars have been in the works for a while, getting close to going commercial. With the drone hobby, there have been quite a few attempts to making ride-on versions (little insane). These stories come up on HackAday.com occasionally. Wind speed and direction changes with altitude. Even 40-50 feet can mean some radical changes. i do time lapse sunset videos almost daily. I've got some, with clouds traveling from three different directions, all at the same time.
11-06-2021 05:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14440)	HarveyH55 wrote:Paraglider might be an option, but there are a lot of other ultralight and experimental personal planes. Harvey, have you watched This Video in full screen? I'm just wondering if you had a chance to look at it in full size. I am familiar with ultralights ... but this is clearly a standard, vanilla, parajumper who is enjoying a standard jump. I asked my son to look at the video and tell me what he was looking at. I covered up the title. He had no problem identifying it as parachute. I'd love to claim a medal for being a pattern-recognition genius but in this case it's pretty obvious. I'm sure Spongy Iris will meet with success in finding which jumper he filmed.
20-06-2021 07:38
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:Paraglider might be an option, but there are a lot of other ultralight and experimental personal planes. Harvey, have you watched This Video in full screen? I'm just wondering if you had a chance to look at it in full size. I am familiar with ultralights ... but this is clearly a standard, vanilla, parajumper who is enjoying a standard jump. I asked my son to look at the video and tell me what he was looking at. I covered up the title. He had no problem identifying it as parachute. I'd love to claim a medal for being a pattern-recognition genius but in this case it's pretty obvious. I'm sure Spongy Iris will meet with success in finding which jumper he filmed. Sorry I had no success. The 3 paragliders who shared their flights were not a match. I have contacted all 3 of them multiple times to ask who it could have been, and they have not yet returned my inquiries. Here are their flight paths. Mitch flew no where near me. https://www.xcontest.org/world/en/flights/detail:mitchriley/27.3.2021/20:05 Jack and Evan did fly over my neighborhood, but about 40 and 30 minutes before I started filming. By the time I started filming, they were both flying about 5 miles south of me. They would not have been in sight. https://www.xcontest.org/world/en/flights/detail:evanc/27.03.2021/19:51 https://www.xcontest.org/world/en/flights/detail:Jackgdiaz/27.03.2021/20:29 The links to the flight paths take you to an interactive web page where you can really study the path of how a paraglider flies. Here are screen shots of the flight paths of Jack and Evan when they were spiraling over my neighborhood. I am finding it impossible to believe, me holding my smart phone awkwardly, while smoking a cigarette, on maximum zoom, I would have been able to capture footage such as the above flight paths. The biggest reason why... When a paraglider is spiraling like that, it's cuz the pilot is climbing a thermal, and ascending in altitude. If the paraglider is going in a straight line, the pilot will be descending in altitude. From 1:54 p.m. to 1:58 p.m. Evan ascended about 900 feet. From 2:06 p.m. to 2:10 p.m Jack ascended about 600 feet. When an object moves further away it appears smaller in sight. This is angular size. Moving 600 ft away will decrease angular size by 17%, and 900 feet by 23%. But the object in the video never appeared to change in size. So it looks like a paraglider spiraling as if it was climbing a thermal. But the thing is, it didn't appear to climb.
21-06-2021 04:50
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14440)	Spongy Iris wrote:The links to the flight paths take you to an interactive web page where you can really study the path of how a paraglider flies. ... except that the pilot/jumper can choose a different path. Spongy Iris wrote: I am finding it impossible to believe, me holding my smart phone awkwardly, while smoking a cigarette, on maximum zoom, I would have been able to capture footage such as the above flight paths. So you therefore conclude that the parachutist was not on one of those paths. At a certain point you have to go with the empirical evidence, i.e. your video clearly shows a parachutist descending. As to why he was there, in that spot, is worthy of the full spectrum of speculation, but denial of the parachutist is not on the table. I hope you get an answer. . Attached image: Edited on 21-06-2021 04:51
22-06-2021 06:05
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: ... except that the pilot/jumper can choose a different path. I doubt any paraglider will identify him or her self as the pilot on that video... We'll see... But the default is to not share your flight path on their cross country tracker I'm told. IBdaMann wrote: So you therefore conclude that the parachutist was not on one of those paths. A parachute cannot maintain a steady altitude, such as the thing in that video appears to be doing, can it? Look at the flight details of the paragliders. They are either rising or falling. IBdaMann wrote: At a certain point you have to go with the empirical evidence, i.e. your video clearly shows a parachutist descending. As to why he was there, in that spot, is worthy of the full spectrum of speculation, but denial of the parachutist is not on the table. I hope you get an answer. . No it shows a steady altitude. If it was descending, wouldn't it become bigger on camera as it got closer to me? The first person to reply to me was a communication director at a paragliding club, who said the names of 3 pilots, who flew far from Mt Diablo. Only 1 of those 3 pilots even replied to me. He shared his flight map on a website. Using that website I confirmed the flight paths of the other 2 pilots matched the info the director told me. I have reached out to the pilots repeatedly. I have reached out to the Bay Area Paragliding Association and my local news page, Patch. Further effort to contact people about this would definitely be harassment. During my efforts in these past few days, my video added +200 views. But no one has yet confirmed it was him or her.
22-06-2021 07:31
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Are these flight paths, submitted in advance of a flight? Are they GPS tracking? Are all pilots required to submit flight plans/logs? Any chance there are undocumented para-gliders, who just head out, and don't file any paperwork? I don't for flying my drones, relying mostly on the frequently changing rules, and pleading ignorance, if the issue ever comes up.
22-06-2021 09:41
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	HarveyH55 wrote: Are these flight paths, submitted in advance of a flight? Are they GPS tracking? Are all pilots required to submit flight plans/logs? Any chance there are undocumented para-gliders, who just head out, and don't file any paperwork? I don't for flying my drones, relying mostly on the frequently changing rules, and pleading ignorance, if the issue ever comes up. Below literature should answer most of your questions. I don't think it's possible for a paraglider pilot to know all the ups, downs, and spins in advance of flight. Gotta move with the wind I guess. I assume they have a general idea which direction they will fly, and how to roll with the punches... "XContest is an online platform for paragliding and hanggliding. Pilots can upload their tracklogs, which can include descriptions and photos in order to compete in worldwide, national or club competitions. In addition XContest can also serve as a pilot's own personal flight record without any public posting or competing necessary. Each pilot automatically becomes a competitor in the "World XContest" contest during registration but the pilot can choose the flights he wants to make public or not. XContest is the prefered scoring tool used for dozens of official national and club competitions, including paramotor. Participation in World XContest is free of charge. As a bonus, this platform also serves as a sort of social networking site, pilots can see who they have met in the air, pilots can "like" and comment on flights, write private messages and/or find new flight locations and areas. The XContest siteworks directly with the XCTrack mobile flight navigation app for Android providing a unified system for management and view of airspaces. It also makes uploading and managing your flight logs seamless. XCTrack covers everything you need: valid and reliable IGC tracklog easy one-click upload to XContest XC navigation with FAI assistant, thermal assistant and online progressive optimization full-featured XC competition navigation map view with terrain map airspace view and warnings, automatical update of airspace activations supports many external devices"
22-06-2021 17:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14440)	Spongy Iris wrote:A parachute cannot maintain a steady altitude, such as the thing in that video appears to be doing, can it? I have two responses to your question: 1. Yes. A parachute can rise and lift a parachutist with just a breeze. I showed you a video of the paragliders in Miraflores (Peru) who truck around for fifteen minutes carrying a tourist passenger (i.e. two people) and then land where they took off (i.e. same altitude). This is a business; they do this all day, all the time, taking off from, and landing at, the same spot. 2. I have watched your video many times and it clearly shows a parachute descending. Yes, you move the camera around a lot. Yes, there are segments as long as 20 seconds in which you aren't even filming the parachutist. No, there aren't any clouds in the sky for you to confirm the descent. Therefore, to convince yourself, go back to the same spot where you made your video but on a day there are other parachutists, and when there are clouds in the sky. Bring a tripod and just focus on the parachute until it lands. You might want to call skydiving/jumping clubs/schools in your area and find out when they will be jumping. I know you tried identifying the specific parachutist in your video but I recommend you try working the other direction, i.e. find out who jumps where and when and then just catch the next jumper on video ... and be prepared to take a much better video. I realize that this represents a bit of a letdown compared to the excitement of not having identified a particular flying object ... but this will just make your adrenaline tsunami when you find actually something that cannot be identified. Good luck.

22-06-2021 17:28
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: I have watched your video many times and it clearly shows a parachute descending. No dude. It was not descending.
22-06-2021 18:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14440)	Spongy Iris wrote:No dude. It was not descending. Your story and your video do not align. The parachute was descending, however there were no clouds in the sky and you moved the camera around a great deal and even stopped taking video of the parachute for substantial segments. It is possible that you did not capture certain updrafts. In any event, there were brief segments in the video where you were stable and the parachute was clearly descending. To deny this is to deny your video. So just go back out and take another video. Now you know what considerations must be taken into account. . Attached image:
22-06-2021 22:33
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Your story and your video do not align. The parachute was descending, however there were no clouds in the sky and you moved the camera around a great deal and even stopped taking video of the parachute for substantial segments. It is possible that you did not capture certain updrafts. In any event, there were brief segments in the video where you were stable and the parachute was clearly descending. To deny this is to deny your video. . How are you assessing that thing descended? Are you saying because it moved down the screen in the video, it's descending? The frame of reference using maximum zoom is too small, the camera was not still enough, and there are no objects in the background, for you to conclusively state that object was descending based on its movement on screen You saw what it looked like before I zoomed in, and a street light could be seen. Here is the frame of reference if I zoom onto that street light, from where I was standing, to give you an idea how hard it would have been to keep track of a spiraling paraglider, with a smart phone. However, because that thing appeared the same size at the end of the video as it did at the start of the video, it looks like it never ascended or descended or moved sideways by any substantial amount while being filmed. Edited on 22-06-2021 22:35
23-06-2021 02:51
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14440)	Spongy Iris wrote:How are you assessing that thing descended? Experience. Such an assessment is trivial. It is obvious. The question for you is how did you miss it? Spongy Iris wrote:The frame of reference using maximum zoom is too small, Perhaps for you, not for me. Spongy Iris wrote:... the camera was not still enough, Yes, it was still enough in parts but all that is irrelevant. When something is obvious, it makes no sense to break down why it is obvious, e.g. there is no reason for you to explain how you can tell two people apart. Time hack 3:36 is one good point where it is very clear/obvious if you have any experience concerning parachutists. Spongy Iris wrote: Here is the frame of reference No frame of reference is needed. I saw your video. That was enough. Spongy Iris wrote:However, because that thing appeared the same size at the end of the video as it did at the start of the video, What is the precision of your size estimation? Spongy Iris wrote: ... while being filmed. ... while being videoed. We don't use film anymore.
23-06-2021 04:05
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Experience. Such an assessment is trivial. It is obvious. The question for you is how did you miss it? I know it wasn't descending by any noticeable amount which could be perceived from the ground. That was what I found so interesting that made me want to record it. IBdaMann wrote: Time hack 3:36 is one good point where it is very clear/obvious if you have any experience concerning parachutists. At 3:36 I had just made a slight motion of the phone to get that thing back in frame. Looks like almost all the motion you see around there is me moving the phone slightly. IBdaMann wrote:No frame of reference is needed. I saw your video. That was enough. Sounds like willful ignorance. IBdaMann wrote: What is the precision of your size estimation? Try the snipping tool. Oh btw, a paraglider recorded taking off from the ground below. https://youtu.be/jnE1epgFA90 Look how quickly the parachutes angular size declines during the 50 second video.
27-06-2021 20:48
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Well the official report was released 6/25. Gov't Can't Explain 143 of 144 Mysterious Flying Objects, Blames Limited Data. https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/what-to-expect-from-pentagons-ufo-report/6227074/
28-06-2021 02:03
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	The question nobody asked... How many other people witnessed your space aliens? A single witness, could have been anything, or nothing. Multiple sightings, in multiple locations, makes it real interesting.
28-06-2021 02:50
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	HarveyH55 wrote: The question nobody asked... How many other people witnessed your space aliens? A single witness, could have been anything, or nothing. Multiple sightings, in multiple locations, makes it real interesting. There were some people passing by when I put down the camera. They didn't care about what was up in the sky. They were engaged in a conversation with their heads down. I decided not to bother them. I don't imagine most people walk around in clear sky broad daylight with their heads up, as they might find it blinding...
28-06-2021 04:28
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14440)	Spongy Iris wrote:Gov't Can't Explain 143 of 144 Mysterious Flying Objects, Blames Limited Data. Are you telling me that the government can't identify 143 of the things they can't identify? You've got to be schytting me! Wait, how were they able to identify that one thing in particular that they couldn't identify? Spongy Iris wrote:There were some people passing by when I put down the camera. Did you say to them "Hey look! ... over there in the sky! ... it's a bona fide UFO right there!" ? ... or had the parachutist already landed?
02-07-2021 09:51
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Gov't Can't Explain 143 of 144 Mysterious Flying Objects, Blames Limited Data. Are you telling me that the government can't identify 143 of the things they can't identify? You've got to be schytting me! Wait, how were they able to identify that one thing in particular that they couldn't identify? Spongy Iris wrote:There were some people passing by when I put down the camera. Did you say to them "Hey look! ... over there in the sky! ... it's a bona fide UFO right there!" ? ... or had the parachutist already landed? Hey Man, I got a couple physics questions for you. Which of these is an example of a black body? Is it the pilot on the top or bottom? And now this one... Is it the pilot on the top, at time stamp 2:00, or the pilot on the bottom, at time stamp 2:04?
02-07-2021 16:34
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14440)	Spongy Iris wrote:Hey Man, I got a couple physics questions for you. Which of these is an example of a black body? Both. I have a feeling you don't fully understand what you are asking. Let me know if you need any further clarification.
02-07-2021 19:01
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: [ Spongy Iris wrote:Hey Man, I got a couple physics questions for you. Which of these is an example of a black body? Both. I have a feeling you don't fully understand what you are asking. Let me know if you need any further clarification. Why does the para shooter alternate between being black and white?
02-07-2021 19:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14440)	Spongy Iris wrote:Why does the para shooter alternate between being black and white? You are asking about lighting effects and photography. The answer is moderately complex and involves contrast, color constancy and metamerism pertaining to the camera's sensors as well as the software's way of handling each in each case. Without being able to test the specific cameras in question under the conditions in question, all we can do is point to these instances and note that they are examples of such occurrences. Have you ever seen this optical illusion? No matter how much independent confirmation you get showing that squares A and B are exactly the same color, to include loading the image in photoshop and seeing for yourself, your brain will insist that those squares are different colors every time you look at this image. Digital cameras are even more easily fooled when they calculate the numeric values for the colors they are to display on any given set of pixels. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-07-2021 19:57
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: Have you ever seen this optical illusion? No matter how much independent confirmation you get showing that squares A and B are exactly the same color, to include loading the image in photoshop and seeing for yourself, your brain will insist that those squares are different colors every time you look at this image. Digital cameras are even more easily fooled when they calculate the numeric values for the colors they are to display on any given set of pixels. Yes, and my brain does indeed insist that square A is dark grey and square B is light grey. Edited on 02-07-2021 19:58
02-07-2021 20:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14440)	gfm7175 wrote:Yes, and my brain does indeed insist that square A is dark grey and square B is light grey. Have you tried loading the image into an image manipulation program like GIMP, Photoshop or MS Paint? This optical illusion really screws with your brain's hardwiring. Those squares are exactly the same color but your brain is telling you that they are different. If you load the image into a graphics program and then copy/drag either one of those squares over to the other square, your brain insists that the square you are dragging is changing color ... despite your knowledge that it cannot. As you drag the square, your brain transitions from insisting that it is a different color to insisting that it is the same color, which means you experience that moment when you honestly believe that the square you are dragging is changing colors. I truly recommend giving it a try.

02-07-2021 21:32
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Have you ever seen this optical illusion? No matter how much independent confirmation you get showing that squares A and B are exactly the same color, to include loading the image in photoshop and seeing for yourself, your brain will insist that those squares are different colors every time you look at this image. Digital cameras are even more easily fooled when they calculate the numeric values for the colors they are to display on any given set of pixels. Dude we're not talking about 50 shades of grey. This was black and white. You should do what the Pentagon does and admit you can't explain it...
02-07-2021 22:28
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:Yes, and my brain does indeed insist that square A is dark grey and square B is light grey. Have you tried loading the image into an image manipulation program like GIMP, Photoshop or MS Paint? This optical illusion really screws with your brain's hardwiring. Those squares are exactly the same color but your brain is telling you that they are different. If you load the image into a graphics program and then copy/drag either one of those squares over to the other square, your brain insists that the square you are dragging is changing color ... despite your knowledge that it cannot. As you drag the square, your brain transitions from insisting that it is a different color to insisting that it is the same color, which means you experience that moment when you honestly believe that the square you are dragging is changing colors. I truly recommend giving it a try. I had never tried doing that...... until now... That's pretty neat. I verified for myself that the two squares are indeed the same color, and then I dragged the one square around and watched it "change colors" as I dragged it across the picture area.
04-07-2021 21:42
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	I guess nobody noticed this thing either... for but a split second, between time stamps 0:01 and 0:02, an extremely tiny dot of light, zips just below the object I recorded, moving left and up on the screen. Below is how that extremely tiny dot of light appears, paused and zoomed in.

Page 2 of 2

Join the debate Congressional UFO Report:

Threads	Replies	Last post
COVID origins 'may have been tied' to China's bioweapons program: GOP report	43	28-12-2022 20:17
UN weather report: Climate woes bad and getting worse faster	1	08-11-2022 18:24
Trump disbanded it, but climate change panel regroups to release its report	9	09-04-2019 00:01
New Climate Change Report Should Be a Wakeup Call	3	06-04-2019 00:07
Report: Great Lakes feeling effects of rapid climate warming (Update)	1	22-03-2019 17:37