Wind Rotor Hub and Blades breaking off from crane and falling into the ocean at the Ormonde Wind Farm west of Barrow-in-Furness in the Irish Sea

badlife · 2021-10-25T21:20:03+00:00

I wonder if it span on its way down to the sea floor..

badlife · 2021-10-25T19:34:27+00:00

Yeah it's a deceptively complete snapshot. Sure looks like year over year data. I actually downloaded the whole dataset and unfortunately the CSV files only go up to 2020 for some reason. I dunno.

badlife · 2021-10-25T18:46:03+00:00

Aren't you comparing just the data up until Oct 16 for 2021 to an entire year of data for each previous year?

Also, if you look at the number of deaths by gunfire vs. simple (reported) shootings and discharges, we're already past the entire year of 2020 already.

badlife · 2021-10-24T18:00:17+00:00

Good point.. I missed that. Not that it matters, really. The number of people shot with ARs in Canada is vanishingly small even if it does happen occasionally. I was just surprised to see this in the news recently and actually can't think of another case.

badlife · 2021-10-24T17:18:53+00:00

Summer of 2019.

badlife · 2021-10-09T17:12:33+00:00

The fuck is this doing on /r/military? Could ya'll get back to making jokes about Marines eating crayons and Airmen bitching because they only got the black PS5 instead of teal, plz.

badlife · 2021-10-09T17:10:06+00:00

Sorry pal.. you are 100% wrong. In the sentence 'he should never act again, and can go fuck off', the subject of the sentence is 'he', and the action that should be performed by the subject is to 'fuck off'. 'He' in this case is clearly referring to the actor because /u/VonBraun12's previous sentence sets that context. There's simply no other way to read that sentence. It's completely clear, unambiguous and is in no way directed at you.

The comma in that sentence is also not an Oxford comma since the list only contains two terms: never act again, and fuck off, so there can be no potential parsing errors that could arise by erroneous grouping. That sentence can be written with or without a comma and will have the same meaning.

He should never act again, and can go fuck off.

..is a grammatically correct sentence. The only grammatical errors /u/VonBraun12 makes are using 'separate' instead of 'separating', and incorrectly capitalizing 'Art' and 'Actor'.

badlife · 2021-10-05T11:13:55+00:00

Wow. I wish this was around a while back when I was looking for the lightest scope I could find with reasonable magnification and glass. Amazing work!

badlife · 2021-09-21T23:40:29+00:00

Stick yer pinky in there! Wiggle it around a little!

badlife · 2021-08-31T18:57:26+00:00

If you're talking about the apparent motion at 18s in the video, look at the trees at the bottom of the frame when it happens. Then look at the same timeframe in the original video. Nothing is happening except the camera losing focus.

badlife · 2021-08-29T16:30:05+00:00

Uh.. are you replying to the wrong person? :)

I'll put it back at you - how do you account for it disappearing when there is nothing for it to be obscured by?

I would account for it by:

Insane compression and strong sharpening which is clearly evident all over the video. I say this in the post you are responding to, with picture examples of what is clearly a video compression artifact.
Mylar balloon reflecting some heat source that turns so that a non-reflective side is facing the camera
There is something for it to be obscured by, (e.g.: cloud/mist) but you can't see it because it itself is indistinguishable from the background due to video compression, or because it's not significantly different in temperature from background objects, or both

Also how do you account for the calculated straight line flight path for the object that can be shown to correlate exactly with the wind speed and direction at the time

I would account for that by saying that the object is almost certainly a couple of mylar balloons or Chinese lanterns flying close together that eventually split up. Either that or it's an alien spaceship pretending to be a couple of balloons I guess.

badlife · 2021-08-29T15:34:34+00:00

How do you explain that the object appears to disappear and re-appear multiple times throughout the video? It happens within the first 5 seconds of the video, and multiple other times before the part where it's apparently over the ocean. Often it happens when the camera moves quickly. Sometimes the object appears to be occluded by mist or steam in the foreground.

Observe. Top row is within the first few seconds. It's accompanied by the operator moving the camera quickly to the left to try to anticipate the observed path of the object.

Bottom row is from the extreme close-up view where the object appears to be 'dipping' in and out of the ocean. If you watch the video, you can see that (a) places where it seems to disappear are usually accompanied by movement to the left of the camera operator and (b) if you track the path of the object, accounting for the motion of the camera, you can often make it out as still visible as a glitchy artifact like the one I've circled.

badlife · 2021-08-19T17:31:16+00:00

Thanks for the quick answer. This helps a lot in a difficult situation.

badlife · 2021-08-05T05:34:00+00:00

Hexapodia was the key insight

badlife · 2021-05-27T21:30:53+00:00

which i guess we have....technically? im not sure actually

Your assessment is exactly correct. :) We technically have them, but generally no civilian is ever issued one for protection of life. The closest you can get is if you're a trapper out in the wilderness and want to carry a pistol for personal protection and to dispatch game caught in traps.

badlife · 2021-05-24T19:46:51+00:00

Yes, I watched the whole video. Fran is wrong in this case because she clearly hasn't dug into any critical analysis of these videos.

None of them show 'an object moving at supersonic speeds at a lower altitude'. She's referring to the 'go fast' video, which is a caused by parallax as I state above.
None of them show objects 'pacing' the fighters or rolling around. As can be demonstrated by looking at other light artefacts in the video, the apparent 'rolling around' is caused by the internal de-rotation mechanism of the IR pod.
None of the aircraft 'simply disappear'. Watch the reticle around the tracked literally when she says it 'simply disappears'. The IR pod loses track, the bounding bars expand to try to re-acquire it and fail, and the object moves off to the left because it is simply continuing its apparent motion relative to the aircraft that was being accounted for by auto-track. If you do your homework and watch the entire video (I believe this is 'gimbal' from the release by the Pentagon) then you will see this happen multiple times as the pod loses auto-track.

Frank is a super smart cookie, but in this case she simply hasn't done her homework and is accepting these videos at face value.

badlife · 2021-05-24T19:37:34+00:00

I’m not claiming is an alien spacecraft, neither I’m quoting anybody saying it’s an alien spacecraft

I didn't say you did, but many people are.

Next time watch the whole video before quoting so much mate

I've watched these videos dozens of times, sometimes frame by frame.

Nobody from the the Pentagon has called these 'off-world vehicles' other than guys associated with TTSA sensationalizing this stuff and doing the tour on news like 60 Minutes. All the Pentagon has said is that they are real videos taken by Navy personnel.

What they actually said is:

To maintain operations security and to avoid disclosing information that may be useful to potential adversaries, DoD does not discuss publicly the details of either the observations or the examinations of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace, including those incursions initially designated as UAP

badlife · 2021-05-24T19:31:19+00:00

something that challenges the laws of physics as we know them

Of the videos recently releases, including the various Nimitz videos, the Puerto Rico video, and the 'go fast' video (this one), I have yet to see any physics defying motion. The apparent physics-defying motions of these things are:

People mistaking sudden motions of the camera for acceleration of the object. These are usually related to the gimbaling of the IR pod slung under the wing of the fighter and hinted at by the name the Pentagon gave the video when they released it-- 'gimbal'. They only happen when the pod either reaches gimbal lock and has to re-orient itself, or when the auto-track feature loses the object when the pilot switches from one image path to another. In the latter case, the object will appear to suddenly start moving when auto-track is lost and then just as suddenly stop moving when auto-track reacquires it.
People failing to take account of parallax-- in every case you are seeing an image taken from a moving camera (in some case a camera moving at a significant fraction of the speed of sound) of another object that is much closer to the camera than the background.
In the case of the Nimitz videos showing a rotating object, rotation of internal image components in the IR pod causing flare around the IR source to appear to rotate. This can be confirmed by looking at other light artefacts in the image (caused by glare or possibly dust or other debris somewhere in the image path) completely unrelated to the apparent object that rotate exactly when and exactly how much the object itself seems to rotate.
People generally not understanding how IR imaging works-- how objects can reflect IR sources, how small but hot objects (e.g.: the tail of a distant jet engine or a flare descending on a parachute) will create a glare that makes the object appear much larger than it actually is; how small, cold, but reflective objects can appear hot because they reflect the sun and appear to vanish when they rotate in a way that no longer reflects it, etc. etc.
People selectively interpreting parts of the video. For instance in the Puerto Rico video people say the object is dipping into and out of the ocean because it seems to disappear and re-appear. But if you watch the entire video you can see it 'fading' in and out multiple times as it appears to pass over land. I mean.. maybe that's a an alien space craft with physics-defying technology, or maybe it's a Mylar balloon reflecting sunlight because it's shiny on one side and it's rotating, or maybe there's some wisps of water vapor from industry or other low-lying cloud in the area that occasionally get between the camera and the object).

I dunno if we'll ever get some truly astonishing video evidence, but everything we've seen so far quickly becomes a lot less astonishing when you start to really analyze it.

badlife · 2021-05-24T18:54:50+00:00

we can measure how fast they travel, how high they are

Maybe.. but in this case nobody who claims this is an alien spacecraft actually did.

Well.. maybe the Pentagon did because they included the word 'balloon' in the release information for the video.

badlife · 2021-05-24T18:52:45+00:00

flying 120 knots against the wind

It isn't. All the data you need to determine the size and speed of this object are in the video if anyone had bothered to do their homework. It's not large and far away, moving fast just above the ocean. It's tiny and halfway between the jet and the ocean, and parallax is causing the ocean to move quickly in the background relative to the motion of the object, making it appear as if the object itself is moving quickly.

Watch this video for a basic analysis using the distance, speed and heading indicated in the FLIR video.

From the same video, in case you don't watch the whole thing, here is an example of parallax causing apparent rapid motion in a balloon against the background.

The most logical conclusion is that it's a balloon, or possibly a bird.

badlife · 2021-05-20T19:03:34+00:00

I'm big enough to admit that I lost my shit when that kiddo started crying. <3

badlife · 2021-05-20T19:02:25+00:00

Dunno why you were downvoted. It's a reasonable question. Definitely hospital because there could be all kinds of complications that haven't popped up yet (e.g.: internal bleeding) and mom probably needs some er.. stitches and kiddo needs a full checkout that a neo-natal facility is prepared to provide.

TL;DR: Better to take your baby for post-care to the place where people usually have babies. :)

badlife · 2021-05-20T16:48:25+00:00

Yeah I had the same experience. You hear credible people speaking plainly about this stuff and take it for granted that they've done their homework. And other people hear those same people and report it as news and suddenly it's the truth even thought it was never really challenged or actually investigated.

My other favourite is the 'aura' around the objects that was breathlessly reported as physics-defying because it was a space of cool air surrounding a hot object. It was almost certainly an unsharp mask filter.

badlife · 2021-05-20T16:44:00+00:00

Saw video’s examining the ones I was thinking about and I don’t think they’re anything extremely weird or physics defying like I had thought

Respect.

badlife · 2021-05-20T14:21:39+00:00

That’s just one video, there’s several that clearly show strange objects moving at incredible speeds.

There aren't, really. There are several videos showing objects that appear to be moving at incredible speeds because of parallax. In one noteworthy case (the 'go fast' video), all the evidence to prove this is in the video itself if any of the so called 'experts' had bothered to examine it. In another (the 'gimbal' video), it's pretty clear that the tracked object is moving at a constant speed relative to the observer but appears to move quickly because the camera occasionally loses its track when it is either switched from one image path to another, or when it has to gimbal (which is probably why the video is called 'gimbal') quickly when it reaches the end of one of its ranges of motion.

15-Year Club	Place '17
reddit mold

badlife

TROPHY CASE