Leaked Government UFO Photo: What Is Hovering Cube-Shaped Object?(popularmechanics.com)
popularmechanics.com
Leaked Government UFO Photo: What Is Hovering Cube-Shaped Object?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a34908126/leaked-ufo-photo-motionless-cube-shaped-object/
15 comments
1. It's not a cube. Read the article. It's "bell-shaped."
2. Were it indeed a cube, identification would be easy: The Borg.
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.
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.
batman balloon
I agree, this looks like a large mylar party balloon, like this 33-inch Batman balloon available in the same shape:
https://www.partycity.com/batman-balloon---cape-33in-262471....
What a great observation by everyone in this thread. You can even make out his fist on the left side of the balloon.
That is dead on, amazing
Perhaps it is Marsh gas or Peculiar Cloud Formation.
Yeah, my first thought was a mylar balloon too:
https://image.made-in-china.com/43f34j00IHgGJdWhCMca/Dto0224...
https://image.made-in-china.com/43f34j00IHgGJdWhCMca/Dto0224...
>“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?
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?
I assume the pilot knows their speed, the wind speed and direction and using radar the objects speed and direction.
Some really good vid's about "UFO's"...busting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWWGmiZs4JA
and
https://www.youtube.com/user/mickword
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWWGmiZs4JA
and
https://www.youtube.com/user/mickword
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!”
Looks an awful lot like an F-14, banked away from camera, moving left to right, with a little fisheye lens effect.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/F-...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/F-...
What we get out of cameras is not a true rendition of the view, but rather a much processed image not to be trusted.
Clearly swamp gas or ball lightning. Move along, people.
It looks more like a radar corner to me, rather than a cube.
First time I encounter this name. Please, what is the use of a radar corner in high altitude in mid Atlantic, is it used in weather stations?
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.
In the era of 8K cameras, UFO pictures are always fuzzy and blurred. What a strange coincidence.
For people who agree with this comment and would like a more formal treatment, UFO debunker Mick West writes about the "low information zone" here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/are-the-navy-ufos-real-or-j...
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/are-the-navy-ufos-real-or-j...
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.
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.
Occam's razor works fine if you add another hypothesis that the accounts aren't entirely accurate.
Actually, sounds more like Occam’s Razor is being misapplied here.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-r...
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-r...
Even expensive lenses can’t fix the atmosphere itself on a humid day
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.
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.
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.
1. Buy the most expensive camera and lens you can find (let’s say $10,000 in total).
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
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
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!
> Yet every time I've seen stuff fly by I didn't recognize, I only had my phone with me. Doh!
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
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
The pilot used his mobile phone to take this pic. Most Mobile phones don’t have good enough lens to take high Res pics at a distance.
Of course. Otherwise, they would be identified!
[deleted]
Just a flare. Move along.
[deleted]
Obvious weather balloon
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.
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.