herald of the summer storms

@QuantumTumbler @MvonRen @NoureddineAMZ @grok They have a theory that accomodates everything while it simultaneously explains nothing. It's fertile ground for generating cultish behavior.

@SCShipyards Instantaneous speed, or accounting for acceleration?

It's worth noting that at "light speed", your nearest star is less than five years away. Not 40. Imbeciles just say things.

@KyleTrainEmoji Tell me you have claude-coded, without telling me you've claude coded.

PICARD: Data, shields up DATA: Brilliant! Shields can reduce damage we sustain. Not immunity. Not hubris. Just prudence. It's not precaution—it's strategy. [camera shakes] WORF: HULL BREACHES ON NINE DECKS DATA: Here's what happened: you told me to raise shields, and I didn't

@yacinelearning "53 IQ" This guy is posing as a standard J-school applicant.

as a 53 IQ individual interviewing world class research weekly I strongly disagree with this post

With the popular appeal of the current UAP files disclosure, I have come across a lot of intense discussion about the videos posted at DOW/UAP. I have argued with some prominent folks about the particulars, but I thought it more productive to discuss some higher-level, conceptual or analytical concerns I have. It's possibly true that some/many/most on the skeptical side engage in some of these. I'm not arguing with them though, so I don't really see it. I'd encourage both sides to take stock. If the shoe fits... First, it seems common for UAP advocates to confuse a possible explanation with proof that all other explanations must be false. That is, if they feel they have a strong candidate for explaining what they see, other possible solutions must not be true. Lessons from algebra, however, tell us that we shouldn't stop looking after we find the first valid result. Everyone that graduated American high school got marked wrong at least once for failing to realize that the square root of 36 has two possible solutions. Yes, 6 is A solution, but it is not the only valid solution. Keep working through the problem, junior, and -6 is there too. One essential step in robust analysis is identifying all possible solutions, or at least a diverse range of them, to further test theories against. And don't fear the alternatives. Contending with them up front and openly only lends additional weight to you resulting conclusion. Conduct the alternatives analysis. Treat the alternatives as real possibilities. Find their strengths and really weigh them against your primary theory. Work to prove them right whether you want them to be right or not. At the end, if your theory wins, you've got a stronger case. That's the best result. Relatedly, be open about alternatives you don't prefer but cannot eliminate. Second, the UAP folks have no coherent ontology of phenomena. This correlates with the next point, but UAP advocates generate ad hoc explanations for what they see, without much regard for what appears on other videos. What they don't seem to comprehend is that each new UAP category pushes them further from credible. One single 'orb' could be explained as an alien probe. Maybe you consider that plausible. But what size? multiple sizes mean multiple classes of alien probe. Slightly less plausible? Now add an additional shape. A new class of craft? The more complex ecology of visitors demands a more detailed explanation. But we have many shapes and still no explanation. These should be data points leading towards a coherent theory. Do they have one? Not that I can tell. By accepting, and really embracing, every 'unexplained' phenomena they actually complicate their theory. This leads to the third point: UAP advocates have built a theory that accommodates everything but explains nothing. This is fatal. They are essentially staking out the "prove a negative" rhetorical space and hoping no one notices. Typical rhetorical space includes an assumption that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. UAP flips this on it's head and demands that the 'normies' prove it isn't aliens. But that isn't good analytical work. 'Not aliens' is the baseline and they are asking others toextend beyond that without first providing the evidence. All this adds up to a terrible analytical environment. No easy fix. Pursue the truth, no matter what, even if the answer is boring. .. or maybe I'm full of shit.

@MvonRen @kyle_ferriter Well, no. .... but roll with it. I was hoping for more intellectual curiosity from you. Maybe you feel like opponents is more fertile ground. Best of luck. If you want to review some of these off line, i'll be around.

@blessedlyunwoke @kyle_ferriter Thanks. Since the visual evidence and data clearly establish that the object accelerates *before* any change in camera motion, opinions and experience are irrelevant. Good luck to you!

Is this @MvonRen hyping up a video of birds again? Tragic.

@jethrothekenite As a 151, I have to say, I think you're right.

Responses to this basically fall into two buckets. 1). "I have an IQ of 190, and this is dead right. Nobody understands me." 2. "I have an IQ of 190, and because I'm so brilliant, everyone understands me." My conclusion is that the real point of this post is to brag about IQ.

Sorry,but the philosophical genealogy of hitler clearly has more in common with the modern left than not. Back to the greek days you have a tension between rationalism and empricism. All of the modern left is 'rational' in ancestry. Hitler quite plainly adhered to this rationalism, but rejected some of the more modern thinkers (Rousseau, for example) for various reasons.

Hitler was not left by any reasonable interpretation. This drum gets beaten regularly by people who are bad at history.

Again, difference of opinion. And i know my experience better than you do. I get that this maybe sounds like a 'trust me bro', but I don't mean it that way. Unfortunately I can't think of a clear test for the two different theories of movement. The MGRS brings questionable timing/accuracy and the visual data is subjective.

@blessedlyunwoke @kyle_ferriter The visual evidence (background motion changing to vertical and apparent trajectory shift, below) speaks for itself. It’s really all you need. The MTS-B’s motion only changed *after* the object accelerated. I’m simply pointing out that MGRS data and RATE G confirm the above.

@disclosureorg Reality is the brakes on extraordinary conclusions.

AARO and NASA continue to be the institutional brakes on extraordinary conclusions.

"that’s also the exact same moment RATE G appears" Okay, so what the system latency between rate change and rate change reporting in the hud? Zero? Some number >0? if it is non-zero what is it? If you cannot establish it conclusively how much are you willing to allow? What level of confidence you to apply to each assumption? Why? These questions are not arbitrary. They are essential to a properly developed analysis.

@blessedlyunwoke @kyle_ferriter You are free to do so, but the second image is clearly the moment vertical camera motion begins (that’s also the exact same moment RATE G appears and background motion/MGRS changes). Here’s the unredacted video. You can check the MGRS values yourself: youtu.be/nKtJslcHlCQ

@19k0011 You weren't smart enough to take it, which is consistent with being a UAP advocate.

What if I told you that I was once offered a staggering sum of money to become a debunker?

@MvonRen @kyle_ferriter "no one has disputed" well, clearly I am disputing.

@blessedlyunwoke @kyle_ferriter Despite several thousand views, no one has disputed that there is lateral/diagonal background (MTS-B) movement when the object accelerates and that vertical movement begins only *after* it takes off. That much is obvious here. Even with latency, MGRS data confirm.

@19k0011 I'm chatting extensively with Marik, not Mick. Maybe both sperg out. ... doubtful, but YMMV.

You spelled “Mick West” wrong

@19k0011 Balloon videos + MarikVR sperging out, coming soon.

Sooner than you think

@TimMerchan77589 @godin232 @LegacyProgramVP @MvonRen @RedPandaKoala To be fair, Legacy might also be a bitch. But that bitch is right about classificaiton.

@TimMerchan77589 @godin232 @LegacyProgramVP @MvonRen @RedPandaKoala Not sure how I got tagged in this. But to summarize Legacy is right about classification. Everyone else is a bitch.

Big news coming today! I have verified through a Former USAF MQ-1/MQ-9 Instructor Sensor Operator (1U0X1) that the 2021 Syria UAP (UFO) video does NOT show “instantaneous acceleration”, and is most likely an airborne object like a balloon. Detailed and very complex analysis coming soon. The information is very technical, but the analysis is crucial in understanding what made a prosaic object appear to zip out of view. Also, it was only ever classified because of the sensor that recorded it and the metadata associated with it, not the actual object.

I genuinely appreciate that you're engaging with me on this. I don't have the tools to put together a demonstration video. I think the video you last posted shows it clearly enough though. On your last point, it would be helpful to establish ( though maybe not possible) what the latency is between track mode changes and track mode change reporting in the HUD (since a frame or three matters). It's not clear that it is zero, as far as I know. I think the lack of acknowledgement of that gap is a real weak point in your analysis, though it is sourced from the "phd scientist" also assuming zero latency. I contend that the background movement is more in line with my position. We just disagree on timing. I would encourage you to incorporate some level of margin of error, at least, into analysis of that event.

@blessedlyunwoke @kyle_ferriter Please show where, exactly, you first see vertical movement. We know vertical motion begins *after* the object accelerates because its apparent motion changes (see below). This is confirmed in MGRS northing data, the background movement, and is exactly when “RATE G” appears.

@AshtonForbes Dude imported some mega man sprites and expected that to hold up in 2026...

Air breathing, meaning they use the air to make bulk plasma and then inject a small amount of Boron 11. They use a high frequency, high voltage ionizer to create the conditions for low temp fusion. They convert energy directly to electricity by having high energy particles run into screens coherently. Gonna review Ion Pumpy Thing next stream.

Further, as a matter of scientific rigor, placing arrows or other markers on evidence can lead to "priming" which is a way of anchoring people into believing what you say. It's a bad habit if you're chasing hard analysis and seeking contradictory opinions. Generally, it leads to less reliable analysis. I go to great lengths to avoid priming others when seeking evaluation of my work. Maybe something to explore.

@MvonRen @kyle_ferriter Thanks for posting that. Obviously demonstrates you (I am assuming it's your work, but you don't seem to credit original sources with consistency) have placed the vertical movement too late. Correcting that should resolve the discrepancy.