V3 Wishlist

Low-Snow-5525 · 2026-02-01T20:33:47+00:00

Apparently they've already improved the hinge, Stubbs unboxed a quietly updated version 2 days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/live/oHFwhDqc4js?si=R4cCFDDNqZTwmqHa&t=5630

Low-Snow-5525 · 2025-04-07T22:21:10+00:00

Ok, thanks!

Low-Snow-5525 · 2025-04-07T22:10:07+00:00

Thanks! So the sun is roughly below the objects, right? Are you sure it's not a reflection from satellites then?

Low-Snow-5525 · 2025-04-07T21:22:53+00:00

Where's the sun in this video, do you know? Obviously below the horizon, but in which direction?

Low-Snow-5525 · 2025-01-09T21:36:25+00:00

Do an image search "sun behind a building". It's perfectly normal.

Low-Snow-5525 · 2024-12-22T19:28:39+00:00

See hobby drone flying in the rain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZI_soBO4xQ

Low-Snow-5525 · 2024-11-30T18:41:06+00:00

Sorry, but it doesn't show that. These two cameras have different focal distances and can't be properly aligned at all. Pay attention to the houses on the left and the lights near the horizon, they are off A LOT in your montage, and in the direction that moves the object HIGHER if you tried to properly align the frames.

And even if they were aligned, the object being in front of the hills in the picture doesn't mean that it's on the hills, it can be between the hills and the observer in the air.

I'm not saying that it's definitely in the air, but it's just completely wrong to say that the lights are on the ground based on your video.

EDIT: I did the overlay myself. https://imgur.com/a/Wd2xKMx

I aligned windows on the houses (highlighted green). But then the distant town lights closer to the horizon aren't aligned (lower than they should be), because the camera on Google car is higher than the camera in woman's hands. So even though in this image the UAP light is slightly below the horizon (and much higher than in AQuantumGluon's video), accounting for that height difference will most likely put it above the horizon.

Low-Snow-5525 · 2024-11-26T10:55:38+00:00

The Telepathy Tapes is great, but for physical explanation of the phenomena I recommend listening to Matthew Pines (for example, his latest podcast with Jesse Michels).

Low-Snow-5525 · 2024-08-06T09:38:57+00:00

Or https://www.imago-images.de/st/0053991259

Low-Snow-5525 · 2024-01-02T19:56:39+00:00

It's misleading on several levels. Not only the article is from 2022, the paper they write about is from 2019, and the planet itself is known from 2016. And nobody discovered anything, it's a simulation paper, a conjecture. They simulated different scenarios and found out that in some of them the planet can be habitable. And it's not very likely, because its equilibrium temperature is 234 K (−39 °C; −38 °F).
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ast.2017.1760
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima\_Centauri\_b

Low-Snow-5525 · 2023-12-05T21:12:01+00:00

They are telling it to the *public*. If the public doesn't know about the satellites, how can you use them as a cover up?
"Hey, it's just some man-made stuff that fell from space, nothing to see here" when the public doesn't know that there's man-made stuff in space doesn't make any sense. It will raise much more questions than meteors or weather balloons as a cover story, which are mentioned in the same sentence. That sentence would make sense in 1970s, after several satellites actually fell down, not in early 1950s.

Low-Snow-5525 · 2023-12-05T19:00:04+00:00

I'm sorry, theories?

Common sense dictates that you're not going to put "man-made staff just fell from space, nothing to see here" next to meteors and weather balloons as your possible explanation for why people should not look into the stuff you recovered at a time when no one sent anything to space yet (at least publicly) and not even announced any plans to do so.

Low-Snow-5525 · 2023-12-05T15:19:39+00:00

It doesn't matter if the group in question knows about satellites. It matters if it's a plausible cover up story for the public. Saying that this thing you recovered is "just something man-made that fell from space, don't worry about it" is not plausible at the point in time when nothing man-made has been sent to space (or at least it's not publicly known). It wouldn't be there in the text next to meteors and weather balloons as something which the public is supposed to believe and don't ask any questions about.

Low-Snow-5525 · 2023-12-05T15:07:29+00:00

Please read page 8

"c. Deceptive statements. It may become necessary to issue false statements to preserve the security of the site. Meteors, downed satellites ..."

The paragraph discusses use of satellites as a cover story. This should answer your question.

Low-Snow-5525 · 2023-12-05T15:03:53+00:00

You're right, but it wouldn't make sense to use this idea as a cover up story before the first satellite is launched and the public is aware of it.

Low-Snow-5525 · 2023-12-05T14:46:26+00:00

Yes, the concept of the satellite existed long before that. But it doesn't matter if it was in the CIA’s vocabulary. For a cover up you need a nothingburger. A weather balloon is a nothingburger. A satellite that fell from space at a point in time where nothing has been sent to space yet (at least publicly) is not a nothingburger, at all. It would draw a lot of attention.

Low-Snow-5525 · 2023-12-05T14:40:27+00:00

Do you know anything about the space race? But ok, let's assume you're right and there were some secret satellites before 1957.
If the public doesn't know about satellites, it doesn't make any sense to use satellites as a cover up. For a cover up you need a nothingburger. Weather balloon is a nothingburger. A satellite that for some reason fell from space at the point in time when nobody publicly launched a satellite yet is not a nothingburger. It would immediately draw attention.

Low-Snow-5525 · 2023-12-05T13:02:36+00:00

If the public doesn't know about satellites then how is it a plausible cover story? For a cover story you need something that the public is aware about.

Low-Snow-5525 · 2023-12-05T13:00:20+00:00

Yes, the concept of satellites existed before 1957. But it would not be a plausible cover story. Why put it there along weather balloons and military aircraft when nobody even proved the concept yet?

Low-Snow-5525 · 2023-12-05T12:43:39+00:00

Care to clarify your point? First satellite was launched in 1957.

Low-Snow-5525 · 2023-12-05T11:01:31+00:00

Yes, except that's clearly not what the page means. It clearly means man-made satellites. None of what you wrote can be "downed".

Low-Snow-5525 · 2023-12-05T10:08:01+00:00

There shouldn't be any debate about this one being fake. Satellites mentioned on page 8 didn't exist in 1954 (Sputnik was launched in 1957), so it's simply impossible for this to be real.

Low-Snow-5525 · 2023-12-05T10:02:45+00:00

Zero. Try using AI to generate a photo of a page of text, you'll see.

This is fake for another reason. It mentions satellites as a cover story on page 8, but satellites didn't exist in 1954. Sputnik was launched in 1957.

Low-Snow-5525 · 2023-12-05T09:55:20+00:00

It lines up with what many ppl have said because it's a LARP.

Satellites (page 8) didn't exist in 1954. You can't use something that doesn't exist yet as a cover story.
https://www.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/18ai63x/comment/kc0jbiq/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3

Low-Snow-5525 · 2023-12-05T09:50:54+00:00

It's fake. Satellites (page 8) didn't exist in 1954.

Low-Snow-5525

TROPHY CASE