KeithCEGJ

arXiv search (All fields) "unidentified anomalous phenomena", "unidentified aerial phenomena", "unidentified flying objects", technosignatures, technosignature arxiv.org/search/?query=… arxiv.org/search/?query=… arxiv.org/search/?query=… arxiv.org/search/?query=… arxiv.org/search/?query=…

@JadogaPhotoArt @liteshaper2 @SEOArkonte @MvonRen @MickWest @adastra1950 @ThomasH_Synth Javier, since Corbell video is in IR then the black object should shine through clouds? No blocking. But it doesn't therefore it cannot be real object. Validates white orb video even more. e.g. Mexico 2004/Campeche UFOs, oil flares shine *through* clouds. web.archive.org/web/2017081503…

@liteshaper2 @SEOArkonte @KCegj4491 @MvonRen @MickWest @adastra1950 @ThomasH_Synth Una mancha de luz circular derivada del orbe solar. Si vamos al vídeo invertido (no IR) el efecto lens flare es mucho más notorio

This is a much better version than the original previously released by Corbel. If this object is interacting with the clouds it likely eliminates parallax & lens flare as possible causes - strongly implying that 90 degree turn is in fact a 90 degree turn. Any theories?

@MvonRen @blessedlyunwoke @DoW_AARO @ZaineMichael1 @LegacyProgramVP @LegacyProgramVP article point.."viewers mistakenly interpret FLIR footage as if it were ordinary daylight video, leading to exaggerated conclusions about what they are seeing." Corbell video-Marik, why black object occluded in cloud? In IR, should shine through. Use white video

@blessedlyunwoke @DoW_AARO @ZaineMichael1 @LegacyProgramVP Let’s be objective and scientific and stick to the verifiable evidence.

@MvonRen @blessedlyunwoke @DoW_AARO @ZaineMichael1 @LegacyProgramVP @LegacyProgramVP article good point.."viewers mistakenly interpret FLIR footage as if it were ordinary daylight video, leading to exaggerated conclusions about what they are seeing." 2004 Mexico UFOs, distant oil flares in IR far away go *through* clouds. web.archive.org/web/2017081503…

@MvonRen @MickWest @FernandoFLongo "The object is progressively occluded by clouds." White video at the turn-object disappears the same. As it's white & in *real* light, not IR, white-on-white looks like disappearance. You're interpreting a visual "disappearance" (as we normally see) to an IR image

@MickWest Since you’re playing word games and are ignoring the evidence, let’s take the below one by one, @MickWest. The object is progressively occluded by clouds. That is inconsistent with lens flare (flare occludes clouds, not vice versa). (This is the part where you go silent.)

Perhaps the most egregious use of a red arrow in the history of ufology.

@FernandoFLongo @MvonRen @MickWest The initial video is black. Do super close-up, as was done, it looks mysterious. In white, big picture, not so. The white clearly crosses the last cloud, it does not enter. A *true* anal. must give both videos together, not focus on minutiae. I suggested this yesterday. Ignored.

This is exactly the problem with Mick West’s approach in these cases. Marik is showing the work. He is testing the hypothesis. He is comparing frames, timing, cloud interaction, apparent motion, and causal sequence. Whether one agrees with every point or not, at least the reasoning is visible, testable, and open to challenge. Mick’s response, once again, is not a technical rebuttal. It is a phrase. A joke about a red arrow. A rhetorical dismissal. But where is the optical reconstruction? Where is the frame-by-frame counter-analysis? Where is the lens-flare model? Where is the source light, lens geometry, cloud occlusion, camera motion, timing comparison, and uncertainty range? If Marik is wrong, then show it technically. That is the question: is Mick simply unwilling to show concrete technical work, or is he unable to confront Marik’s tests at the same level? At this point, I lean toward the second option. Because every time the discussion demands data, reconstruction, and falsifiable analysis, Mick retreats into slogans, labels, jokes, or dismissive one-liners. Congratulations, Marik, for doing the work. This is another debate, beyond the public challenge, where we see the same pattern: one side shows tools, tests, sequence, and reasoning; the other side hides behind rhetoric. That is not analysis. That is avoidance dressed as skepticism.

@FernandoFLongo @MvonRen @MickWest I said yesterday ... "It's just so obvious the camera produces the motion I don't know what going on here. Are folks so tied to their positions? Am I wrong? Fault it. Just a thought."

@FernandoFLongo @MvonRen @MickWest Fernado, this calm very detailed discussion just recently ongoing (an optics expert) x.com/JadogaPhotoArt… And this video x.com/ThomasH_Synth/… where the white object moves when the camera moves and doesn't go into the second cloud. In black different. What do you think?

@liteshaper2 @MvonRen @MickWest @opngate @lbf_tweet @adastra1950 @ZaineMichael1 @ThomasH_Synth The white object goes over the second last cloud in a straight line. Never deviates from a continuous line after the right angle turn.

@KCegj4491 @MvonRen @MickWest @opngate @lbf_tweet @adastra1950 @ZaineMichael1 @ThomasH_Synth I have yet to see what you are referring to with regard to white video as it is the old footage and it cuts off before the point in question. Do you have an updated version?

@OliverWood2017 @MvonRen @MickWest @liteshaper2 @opngate @lbf_tweet @adastra1950 @ZaineMichael1 @ThomasH_Synth There may be a connection to the black object. I honestly don't know about a pixel effect. But not a *maneuver* of the object.

@KCegj4491 @MvonRen @MickWest @liteshaper2 @opngate @lbf_tweet @adastra1950 @ZaineMichael1 @ThomasH_Synth That’s a stuck pixel.

@MvonRen @MickWest @liteshaper2 @opngate @lbf_tweet @adastra1950 @ZaineMichael1 @ThomasH_Synth There never is any "entering" of the white object in clouds. It is always going over them, i.e. a lens artifact.

@KCegj4491 @MickWest @liteshaper2 @opngate @lbf_tweet @adastra1950 @ZaineMichael1 @ThomasH_Synth As far as I can tell, in @ThomasH_Synth’s “white” video (which is now supplanted by the longer, better footage), he never shows the object entering the second cloud formation. As he scrubs through, he stops well short of it. If I’m missing something, please provide screenshots.

@MvonRen @MickWest @liteshaper2 @opngate @lbf_tweet @adastra1950 @ZaineMichael1 @ThomasH_Synth Ok, 9,10,11 secs. here x.com/ThomasH_Synth/… see white image go over the second cloud, i.e. last, and *keep going" straight. Toggle through few times. At 42,43,44 secs. here #DOW-UAP-PR055-Spherical-UAP-over-AFG-in-and-out-of-clouds-23-Nov-2020" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">war.gov/UFO/search/Afg… the black image enters the *same* second cloud, i.e. last & doesn't come out.

@MvonRen @MickWest @liteshaper2 @opngate @lbf_tweet @adastra1950 @ZaineMichael1 @ThomasH_Synth Guys, can I say this? When discussing this in public, with a huge audience, why not show *both* the white and black videos together? Then we get optical experts chiming in. I mean, come on. 🤷‍♂️

@KCegj4491 @MickWest @liteshaper2 @opngate @lbf_tweet @adastra1950 @ZaineMichael1 Now that we see the object stop and appear to maneuver in this cloud, @ThomasH_Synth may want to recreate his analysis with the new, longer footage. Because what we’re seeing here (stopping, apparent maneuver in clouds) indicates the object does *not* follow camera translation.

@MvonRen @MickWest @liteshaper2 @opngate @lbf_tweet @adastra1950 @ZaineMichael1 @ThomasH_Synth Yes, I see that. It goes in, a small delay, and suddenly there's a blackness above this. But in Thomas' video it clearly goes way beyond that and crosses considerably that final cloud *in a straight line* trajectory that doesn't deviate from a straight line.

@MvonRen @MickWest @liteshaper2 @opngate @lbf_tweet @adastra1950 @ZaineMichael1 And I don't understand at all why we are not considering *here* the motion of the camera and the motion of the white "sun" object in the white video given. Camera moves/image moves.

@MickWest @liteshaper2 @opngate @lbf_tweet @adastra1950 I think we can put this “artifact” discussion to bed. At the end of the video, the object appears to move *within* the cloud it ultimately stops in. Take a look at frame 1525 here (highlighted with a red arrow). H/t: @ZaineMichael1 for this excellent footage. Original below.

@MvonRen @MickWest @liteshaper2 @opngate @lbf_tweet @adastra1950 @ZaineMichael1 Yet Marik, in the white video we see the white sun image go *over* the final cloud. Very clear. x.com/ThomasH_Synth/… Isn't the black getting absorbed in your video, unlike the white, *because* we are seeing it in black? Can you reconcile that?

@JadogaPhotoArt @piedrasongs In the first video released long before I didn't see camera stop. In new War Dept. video we see the camera stop and UAP shoots right. So if we give a size to the UAP we can get the speed. But very fast if only 1 m size. Also still anomalous, sphere/no propulsion signature.

@piedrasongs Si contaramos con los datos censurados de la plataforma podríamos determinar si es una velocidad extrema a la que se movía, pero así es muy complicado

Nada de velocidad instantánea. Una mezcla del conocido efecto paralaje y un instante en que la cámara deja de seguir al UAP (detiene el tracking / seguimiento de izquierda a derecha, y comienza a subir) por ende, el objeto se sale de cuadro y nos da la sensación de aceleración 🥲

@JadogaPhotoArt @piedrasongs Javier, for unredacted video (*normal* speed below) is a lined rule feature at screen top. UAP size is 1 interval approx. Assuming, say, UAP 1 m size, it goes 29 m across screen in 1 sec. for *different* 5% speed video. That's 580 m/s or Mach 1.7 youtube.com/watch?v=dOwUS-…

@liteshaper2 @JadogaPhotoArt @SEOArkonte @MvonRen @MickWest @adastra1950 @ThomasH_Synth Ok, I just think we all have to be pleasant to each other. Saying "He altered the video in a way that more closely aligned with what he thinks it is"...crosses a line.

@KCegj4491 @JadogaPhotoArt @SEOArkonte @MvonRen @MickWest @adastra1950 @ThomasH_Synth I didn’t make an accusation? You understand reversing the footage is “altering” - maybe bad choice of words. I think his perspective is valid. I just don’t agree & I point out why.

@liteshaper2 @JadogaPhotoArt @SEOArkonte @MvonRen @MickWest @adastra1950 @ThomasH_Synth @ThomasH_Synth I wonder if you've seen this comment from @liteshaper2 which I would say amounts to an accusation. Honestly interested your reply. @liteshaper2 - from when this was originally looked at in 2025, I don't see anything but honest replies from Thomas.

@KCegj4491 @JadogaPhotoArt @SEOArkonte @MvonRen @MickWest @adastra1950 @ThomasH_Synth Thomas didn’t get a prosaic explanation. He altered the video in a way that more closely aligned with what he thinks it is. It doesn’t change any of the existing details that refute lens flare hypothesis. I have been shooting/editing 30 +years - never seen a flare like that.