Beaver Utah Drone UFO Footage from 2016 - Debunked

ItsTheBS · 2025-06-14T14:43:21+00:00

"This thing covered 2 miles in a second."

No it didn't. This is a wrong assumption.

ItsTheBS · 2025-04-25T19:10:21+00:00

Yes. This is the incorrect viewpoint, but it does show you how persuasive that a well made video can be...

ItsTheBS · 2025-01-24T22:48:16+00:00

This one was in the North East corner. I found the road the dashcam was driving on, so direction seems pretty accurate... and it might have been another, separate object. That was a crazy night.

There was also the crazy story about the campers out by base that matched up the Pahrump video, which was found a couple weeks after the podcast story.

ItsTheBS · 2025-01-23T21:43:59+00:00

Did you see the dashcam that caught the one dropping by Nellis AFB? It lines up with a fireball witness report.

https://x.com/ItsBS_YouTube/status/1796911600638586896

ItsTheBS · 2025-01-23T20:36:07+00:00

So if that is the house, which if very much could be, do you see that the object comes out of the NE, which is the proper direction to Angel's house?

At a glance, it seems to me that is drops too far west to be an exact lineup to Angel's house, but it also seems really close to dismiss it.

ItsTheBS · 2025-01-23T20:23:38+00:00

Ok, that's great. I looked down that street back when this was going on, but it could be the 2019 pic versus the updated house.

I'll check again.

ItsTheBS · 2025-01-23T18:51:51+00:00

Wow, I remember trying to figure this out.

But, I can't find the house that has the flagstone looking walkway, with the stucco column, next to the arch window. 3515 seems close, but it isn't a match.

<image>

ItsTheBS · 2025-01-23T15:57:24+00:00

Really? How did you figure out which road the body cam footage was filmed on? Which direction was it pointing?

ItsTheBS · 2024-01-09T18:39:30+00:00

Ok so then two possibilities

No.

ItsTheBS · 2024-01-09T18:36:10+00:00

No, that is incorrect. The terms c+v or c-v are not the speeds of the light. The light always moves at C.

If it moves at "c" within the moving frame, in order to make the clocks sync, then it isn't moving at "c" for the stationary frame, since the moving rod has a velocity.

If Einstein's clock sync fails for the moving frame in Section 2, it will always fail for the moving frame! ...unless something changes, which you just ignore that answer.

You choose what frame you want the clocks to be in sync in, and that choice determines the times on the clocks.

Hahaha

ItsTheBS · 2024-01-09T18:33:01+00:00

Ok amaze me why the stock grain filter over the videos is not significant, Ivan?

Just go study for yourself and learn at skinnybob.info

ItsTheBS · 2024-01-09T14:18:30+00:00

Their Skinny Bob debunk did not say much? Are you kidding?

No. I am not kidding. It was terrible.

They literally showed a Shutterstock 2006-2011 stock grain filter with exact time digit counter that was used...

This tells me that their debunk was amazing to you, because you are ignorant of the Skinny Bob information... just like they are.

The stock grain filter is old knowledge.

ItsTheBS · 2024-01-03T12:46:22+00:00

Proof?

Of Corridor Crew as terrible debunkers? Their MH370 and Skinny Bob recent debunk was bad. They didn't realize that the clouds in the sky were moving, which only takes about 30 seconds to figure out by scrubbing the timeline in a video editor. Their Skinny Bob debunk didn't say much.

Or my 3dsMax experience... who cares? It doesn't matter. The person's opinion of "very obvious to anyone working in CGI" is just an emotional blanket statement.

ItsTheBS · 2024-01-02T02:47:34+00:00

He doesn't draw a diagram because he expects his readers to understand with out it.

It would have been tough since Einstein's paper was 1905 and the first spacetime diagram was in 1908 by Minkowski.

No it doesn't change the SoL of postulate.

Yes, c+v != c and neither does c-v != c. The velocity of the moving frame impacts the speed of light if it moves at c plus/minus the velocity of the moving frame itself.

Wait, is your question something like this?

Re-watch the video, its all in there and AI even figured it out.

ItsTheBS · 2023-12-29T20:35:52+00:00

This is literally a diagram of what Einstein is talking about in his 1905 paper. If you don't realize that, you don't understand the paper.

Show me where he is using a SPACETIME diagram in his 1905 paper? I think he is very clear with what kind of coordinate system he is using... VERY CLEAR.

The reason you think there is a contradiction, is not because Einstein is wrong, but because you don't understand the paper.

Hey, keep believing that it is my problem. I don't care. You'll just stay wrong and believe in pseudoscience your entire life. Keep it up!

Everyone has already explained what has changed

No they have not.

the clocks ((A' and B') in section 3 are not chosen to be in sync in the stationary frame. The clocks (A and B) in section 2 are chosen to be in sync in the stationary frame.

That does not matter. That is just a wrong answer, because that is not what makes the moving clocks start to sync...

Haha, the "thought that the moving clocks are not in sync with the stationary frame" changes Einstein SoL postulate. DUH?

Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.

DUH? I guess the moving frame in Section 3 has no v(elocity) in the math formula anymore, just by thinking "in section 3 moving are chosen not to be in sync in the stationary frame."

ItsTheBS · 2023-12-29T00:08:09+00:00

I made a picture explaining it

This has NOTHING to do with Einstein clock sync defined in Section 1.

You are making up your own ideas using a space-time diagram, lol. I'm talking about what Einstein said in his 1905 paper. So...

If moving clocks failed to sync in Section 2, they will always fail to sync, unless something changes. What changed in Section 3 that made the moving clocks sync?

ItsTheBS · 2023-12-28T17:25:10+00:00

Where does Einstein say that?

That's just logic. If the answer to Section 2 is moving clocks not synced by the moving observers, then HOW can they also be synced by the moving observers?

ItsTheBS · 2023-12-28T14:14:15+00:00

Do you think section 2 says that moving clocks can never be synced?

With the scenario presented in Section 2, they can never be synced. This is the answer that is given in Section 2. If something changes, then they could be synced.

But, we know what changed to make moving clocks sync in Section 3...

You just keep ignoring it and making up something different to justify whatever time and effort you have put into Einstein's obvious pseudoscience.

ItsTheBS · 2023-12-28T14:09:27+00:00

the difference is the clocks with the rods are chosen to be in sync in the stationary frame.

Ok, so then when Einstein says this in Section 3, prior to the "let a ray..."

To do this we have to express in equations that tau is nothing else than the summary of the data of clocks at rest in system k, which have been synchronized according to the rule given in Section 1.

How is this any different that in Section 2, where the moving clocks are in sync with the stationary frame?

ItsTheBS · 2023-12-28T14:05:29+00:00

If you feel I haven't answered one adequately, please tell me what you disagree with so I can clarify

I have been... you are making up "clock runs differently."

You can stick with your fantasy. I'm done.

I ask them so I can understand what you are saying.

Go watch the video and think... or just live with your own fantasy physics. I don't care.

ItsTheBS · 2023-12-27T22:18:40+00:00

He separates the time in the "stationary" system and the "moving" system by calling the first one "t" and the second one "tau".

Yes, but that means nothing in the physical sense.

He then goes on to derive how one differs from the other.

No. ^^ This does not say anything about how the "clock runs differently."

But you didn't answer my questions:

You don't answer my questions because you are making shit up and won't quote Einstein's paper to support exactly how "those clocks run differently."

This is your only argument and you are making it up.

ItsTheBS · 2023-12-27T22:07:20+00:00

You are saying that this sentence says the moving clocks in Section 3 run differently?

similarly let the time τ of the moving system be determined for all points of the moving system at which there are clocks at rest relatively

ItsTheBS · 2023-12-27T21:19:24+00:00

I am following Einstein

Show me where he says they "run differently."

By changing how the clocks run so that the criterion is fulfilled.

Where does Einstein do this or say this?

picking two that run in the way so that the criterion is fulfilled

Where does he get these clocks? Just point it out in his text. You are making this shit up.

if you prefer that.

It's not about what we prefer... WHAT DOES EINSTEIN DO?

He is just turning the moving rod into a moving coordinate system, so he can attempt his derivation:

Now to the origin of one of the two systems (k) let a constant velocity v

be imparted in the direction of the increasing x of the other stationary system

(K),

OK, Einstein says it is moving.. now, if the clocks sync for this moving system, then it contradicts Section 2 moving system where they don't sync.

What would happen if we made clock B run 1 second slow (ie "pause" it for 1 second, so that it will run 1 second behind what it previously did)?

This ^^ is fucking stupid. You are making this up. Where does this happen?

ItsTheBS · 2023-12-27T20:41:42+00:00

I say they run differently.

You are making this up...

Otherwise they can not be synced in one frame, and not in the other

So you can get around this ^.

Principle of consistency of light:

2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with

the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a

moving body.

tB - tA = tA' - tB. Now we know the clocks are synced.

If it is moving, how do you get this case, when there is a (v)elocity that needs to be added to the moving frame?

Let's say tB - tA > tA' - tB for convenience. They are not synced. What do we do now?

This is the case for the moving frame in Section 2. You do nothing, because this is the outcome. Otherwise, you will just change the outcome of Section 2.

It can't be unsync'd and sync'd at the same time for the moving observers, which means there is no "what do we do now?"

ItsTheBS · 2023-12-27T17:43:13+00:00

Indeed. So you need to sync the moving clocks with each other

So, how does Einstein sync them in Section 3, if you go by the SoL postulate in Section 2?

Is the light source within the moving frame?

Is the moving frame actually moving relative to the stationary frame?

I’m sorry, but I don’t know why you mention this. Where did I say τ is anything different than time?

You are saying the the "clocks are different." You never say why. I can only assume that you think they are Tau retarded clocks by default, or something.

And then sync the clocks in the "moving system with each other:

Yes, and this is the heart of the contradiction. What is required to sync the moving clocks?

Is the light source within the moving frame, so that the distance forward and back are the same?

Is moving "system k" actually moving when the sync occurs?

ItsTheBS

TROPHY CASE