@Meedsterone Intriguing idea - but it comes UP through the clouds and appears to make a sharp turn.
English
LiteShaper
2.7K posts
LiteShaper
@liteshaper2
Filmmaker. Mountain Biker. Father. Explorer. I have frequent disagreements with the nature of gravity.
Katılım Mayıs 2023
110 Takip Edilen72 Takipçiler
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?
English
@lbf_tweet @opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 It might be a flare. I don’t yet see how - but I don’t know what I don’t know. What I do know is you can discern cloud edges & openings and opacity that is consistent with object in that space. You can’t sit there and tell me the sky isn’t blue. Its ludicrous.
English
@liteshaper2 @opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 Of course, to be clear that does not mean the thing *didn't* emerge from the clouds. I don't even necessarily disagree with the post that it *looks* like it might have. It just means that we can't say for sure and there might be other possibilities in line with some lens flare.
English
@lbf_tweet @opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 We have ia correlation of the turn with camera movement. Correlation isn’t causation - & the speed of the object seems to exceed what you would expect from a flare given gentle speed of the camera. That & the remarkably natural appearance of object in clouds says real object.
English
@liteshaper2 @opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 The evidence in favor of it following the camera is much stronger, and as such it should still as of right now be ranked higher among the list of possibilities over the much weaker and more uncertain evidence for it emerging from the clouds.
English
@lbf_tweet @opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 Oh yeah - I can deny it. Your response was ludicrous. And there is nothing “in depth” about it. And you didn’t correct anything. You simply demonstrated a level of bias and dissonance that is an unfortunate attribute of many so called “skeptics”. You give skepticism bad rap
English
@liteshaper2 @opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 There's obviously no consensus about such a claim at Metabunk. People can initially make mistakes that then get corrected with more in depth analysis like the one I provided, which objectively neither that post nor you can deny.
English
@lbf_tweet @opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 It appears Metabunk doesn’t agree with you. It’s good to know some people don’t let bias interfere with their eyesight. IDT they make glasses for that…
English
@liteshaper2 @opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 At least that's what I would need to be sure. Some of the sharp gradients we see might represent that. But I don't know whether that's always the case. And regardless, there's no sharp gradient in the specific spot the object emerges from.
English
@MvonRen @kyle_ferriter @KCegj4491 @MickWest @adastra1950 @ThomasH_Synth That’s pretty remarkable. Good to know some people don’t let bias interfere with their eyesight. IDT they make glasses for that:). The other aspect to this is IDT the rate at which the camera moves would make a lens flare move quite as fast as the object moves.
English
@kyle_ferriter @KCegj4491 @MickWest @liteshaper2 @adastra1950 @ThomasH_Synth Take a look, @kyle_ferriter:
Metabunk agrees with @liteshaper2 on the UAP moving through the clouds. Great to see!
Also, where has @MickWest been?
Despite these huge UAP releases (which falsify his “theories” *and* include new anomalies) he has refused to engage substantively.
Marik vR@MvonRen
If the Syria UAP’s apparent acceleration is due to camera movement, there would be *no* diagonal background movement when the object accelerates. But there is (compare red arrow to background motion). The camera (background) motion only changes *AFTER* the object accelerates.
English
@NoureddineAMZ That’s a good point. A lens flare likely should have continued to the edge of frame. Why did it coincidently stop in the dark pocket when cam tilt angle and rate of pan never changed?
English
@liteshaper2 Also, it's weird, where did the disk go at the end?
English
@lbf_tweet @opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 And you are saying you can not see the edges of the cloud your arrows are pointing at that the object moved under? And I didn’t say “sharp” gradient. A gradient is intrinsically gradual (thus the word) given the progressive opacity of the cloud layer.
English
@liteshaper2 @opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 For example the object emerges from the area between the tips of the two arrows here. What indication do you have that there's an edge of a cloud there ? There's no sharp gradient between those. It's just some random area of the image you'd never have been able to guess.
English
@lbf_tweet @opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 That is an idiotic statement. Are you telling me, with a straight face, you can not differentiate the edges of different cloud layers without a ground reference? All you see is “just clouds”? Are you kidding me?
English
@liteshaper2 @opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 To be sure that it emerges from a cloud you'd need an area where the clouds stop and the ground or the sky begins. But we have no such area here. It's all clouds, and you are imagining the edge of one when it could easily be the edge of something else that's causing the fade.
English
@lbf_tweet @opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 Wow. Ok. It is this caliber of “logic” & dissonance that makes me inherently doubt any analysis you would forward. It is literally the uneven cloud edge and higher wisps that are clearly defined - twice. You see it. You just refuse to acknowledge it. And that says a lot.
English
@liteshaper2 @opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 You see the edge of an area where the thing progressively fades out and back in. If the black circle wasn't there and I asked you "Where are the edges of the clouds" you would not be able to identify those specific areas. It could've happened at any random point on the image.
English
@lbf_tweet @opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 No. Shape effected by cloud edges in two places where it is progressively obscured and progressively revealed with a gradient cloud opacity change that is in perfect accordance with the cloud patches. Doesn’t happen once - but twice. You can clearly see the edge.
English
@liteshaper2 @opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 I don't see how you can claim it corresponds to cloud edges. We can't see where the cloud edges are. It looks more like it fades out and back in again at some random point in the image. Maybe there's a curved area inside the camera blocking the internal reflection there.
English
@JadogaPhotoArt @SEOArkonte @KCegj4491 @MvonRen @MickWest @adastra1950 @ThomasH_Synth But that’s the point. It doesn’t “fuse” with anything. It is both progressively obscured (& revealed) beneath clouds and has clouds above it that have a variable opacity based on object motion & location. In over 30 years of shooting & editing have never seen that.
English
@liteshaper2 @SEOArkonte @KCegj4491 @MvonRen @MickWest @adastra1950 @ThomasH_Synth Los lens flares se comportan de forma similar a como lo haría un objeto orgánico. En esta ocasión, el escenario (nubes) ha ayudado a generar esa sensación de fusión de la supuesta esfera con la masa nubosa
Español
@opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 The object turn does have a correlation with camera shift. But I am not convinced the progressive rate of the object matches rate of camera movement. Could be coincidental.
English
@liteshaper2 @MickWest @adastra1950 That doesn’t look one iota like a lens flare. I would believe about anything other than that. Looks like a craft moving through clouds to me. If it’s a lens flare it shouldn’t interact with clouds.
English
@opngate @MickWest @adastra1950 If it is - it’s one very strange flare…possibly from another planet. :). I don’t understand how a flare can behave like that? Unless some kind of IR variable I don’t know about. From a photographic standpoint it looks completely organic and corresponds to cloud edges.
English
@kyle_ferriter @MvonRen @KCegj4491 @MickWest @adastra1950 @ThomasH_Synth Your example is profoundly different than this…
English
@MvonRen @KCegj4491 @MickWest @liteshaper2 @adastra1950 @ThomasH_Synth Look at the motion of the lens flare here
Kyle Ferriter@kyle_ferriter
@liteshaper2 @AeroTech_Space @MickWest @ThomasH_Synth @JeremyCorbell It's common to see some washed out details of the scene behind a lens flare, depending on how bright it is. If this is lens flare the clouds aren't *in front* of it, you're seeing the clouds a bit *through* the lens flare artifact. Example:
English
@kyle_ferriter @MvonRen @KCegj4491 @MickWest @adastra1950 @ThomasH_Synth And look at how the lens flare doesn’t go behind the chair…
English
@ChilliFowler @GoodTroubleShow How do you know the distances between layers when you are looking at a 2D image? How does a flare correspond so perfectly to the edge of a cloud in two places with a perfect variable gradient with clouds having perfect variable opacity- in exactly the way a real object would?
English
@GoodTroubleShow The video is absolute trash anyway. Why aren't the clouds affected if it's a ufo?
English
Mick West thinks the public is stupid.
He is nothing more than a pompous ass who is clearly being paid to pretend he’s a scientist while spreading disinformation to the public.
Mick West@MickWest
@liteshaper2 @adastra1950 An internal reflection, not a shadow. Lens flare
English
@JadogaPhotoArt @SEOArkonte @KCegj4491 @MvonRen @MickWest @adastra1950 @ThomasH_Synth And yet it behaves organically within the cloud in two places corresponding perfectly to cloud edges bordering cloud patches - with variable gradient & size of object and opacity of clouds looking exactly as they should with real object. Inverting the video doesn’t change that.
English
@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
Español
@MickWest @kyle_ferriter And why doesn’t the object, if it is a flare, continue on its path, beyond the dark cloud in sync with camera motion? The camera angle seems consistent. If flare it likely should have continued to edge of frame. Seems unusual it would vanish only within darker cloud?
English
@MickWest @kyle_ferriter It vanishes NEAR the other end - obscured by similar thermal return within the clouds. When it appears within clouds why does a flare respond to edge of cloud bank with a natural gradient - exactly as an actual object would?
English
@KCegj4491 @JadogaPhotoArt @MvonRen @Neil__Goodman @SEOArkonte @MickWest @adastra1950 @ThomasH_Synth I am assuming this is in black hot mode - as it was filmed by the drone.
English
@liteshaper2 @JadogaPhotoArt @MvonRen @Neil__Goodman @SEOArkonte @MickWest @adastra1950 @ThomasH_Synth Why did they release the black video? The white one, I just said, has the white "sphere" significantly going *over* the last cloud. Black one, it "goes into" the last cloud. Making it look real. If they'd released the white one, that's one cloud "disappearance" gone. Suspicious.
English