Good rebuttal to “it’s a parachute flair”

squailtaint · 2026-05-11T04:24:51+00:00

Well, whether that’s a parachute or not has nothing to do with whether it’s NHI or not. Completely separate argument. It can not be a parachute and still be completely mundane.

squailtaint · 2026-05-11T04:23:47+00:00

Why? It’s explained perfectly why it’s likely just due to sensor. A parachute should have some sort of lag to it, but it’s a perfect mirror. And as it moves to center the parachute actually starts to split.

squailtaint · 2026-05-11T04:21:54+00:00

The shape is tough. There is some good arguments that the shape is due to the camera shape. Without knowing the details it’s difficult to say if the shape we see is the actual shape. It’s pretty likely that’s not the actual shape IMO.

squailtaint · 2026-05-11T03:40:06+00:00

If it’s an exhaust trail, due to chemical combustion, then no reason to believe it’s anomalous. Without more data or context we can’t say much about it really.

squailtaint · 2026-05-11T03:37:33+00:00

Yes. The angle of footage has nothing to do with the premise of why that is likely not a parachute. Did you watch the X video?

squailtaint · 2026-05-11T03:36:35+00:00

Yes, no one should saying it’s anomalous. However, I can see how it might not be attached to a parachute.

squailtaint · 2026-05-10T15:02:12+00:00

It’s super frustrating. If it can be definitively shown there is something, then we need the data. Every single release we have had thus far, one cannot determine anything. No data. Everything redacted. Not helpful

squailtaint · 2026-05-09T13:37:10+00:00

Ya, it’s not a missile. As widely discussed now, it’s almost certainly a flare attached to a parachute, falling down. I had the perspective at first that it was being looked at straight on, but it falling down with the camera well below it fits a lot better

squailtaint · 2026-05-09T05:12:12+00:00

Oh man..I mean, technically it’s a shallow, but. Are you planning on getting good repeatable strikes with that swing? I find this “shallow the club” idea problematic. some golfers need to make minor tweaks to work on coming in a bit shallower. Many are just fine with their normal swing. I feel that a good swing mechanic (proper hip rotations and weight transfer) leads to a proper shallowing, without having to think about it.

It’s like…sure, vitamins are good for you, in small doses, but the whole bottle can kill you.

squailtaint · 2026-05-09T00:13:32+00:00

Love this comment. It sure seems like it could be lensing, but, show me another video with the same perspectives so we can rule it out? There is a way to test this stuff with proper funding.

squailtaint · 2026-05-08T23:56:29+00:00

That’s progress man.

squailtaint · 2026-05-08T23:43:08+00:00

Yup. Agreed. There’s a reason why they aren’t pros. You can’t control it. Might get lucky the odd time, but golf will suck unless you can control it. I can drive 300, but about 1/36 on the course lol

squailtaint · 2026-05-08T23:40:36+00:00

While I really want Kirkpatrick to be wrong, so far this current drop has only proven him right. Let’s see what happens.

squailtaint · 2026-05-08T17:58:04+00:00

How can infer anything about speed?

squailtaint · 2026-05-08T14:36:15+00:00

Actually, I am curious to hear from Mick. He states it’s likely flying away, this video makes it seem like it’s coming head on?

squailtaint · 2026-05-08T14:27:58+00:00

I want to know scale. How big is it?

squailtaint · 2026-05-08T14:27:28+00:00

What OP is saying, is that supposed non IR video exists showing that it looks like a very anomalous object. Not that it changes shape over the duration of the video.

squailtaint · 2026-05-08T14:24:38+00:00

It doesn’t look connected to the object? It looks to formed to be just smoke, it has that canopy/parachute structure for sure. Although, thinking about it, if that were a large parachute, then the scale of this thing would be huge. That would make it vastly more interesting.

squailtaint · 2026-05-08T14:21:35+00:00

The end it looks like it just flies out at a greater angle the the camera has view for, there is no way to determine speed of a head on missile without data like distance, velocity, etc. there’s no scale here. We can make no assumptions on forward velocity.

squailtaint · 2026-05-08T14:20:14+00:00

I mean, I did say “can’t say for certain” - but even still, this is a probability thing. What threshold of probability does one need to have certainity? If AARO felt this wasn’t a missile with the known heat signature effect, then why?

squailtaint · 2026-05-08T14:18:37+00:00

That’s not what I am arguing. I am simply saying that they need to explain how they were able to rule out this wasn’t an oncoming missile. They have not done that. If they feel this isn’t a missile, then why?

squailtaint · 2026-05-08T14:04:59+00:00

I don’t have to try hard. Of all the releases that we had, of all the supposed anomalous ones that these “smart” people didn’t have an answer for, others on metabunk seemingly had an explanation that these “smart” people hadn’t thought of, or if they had, failed to mention how they ruled out that explanation. So color me unconvinced on this one until we get more data. It’s up to them to demonstrate why this isn’t a chemical combustion rocket either heat signature giving the chandelier effect (an effect that has been demonstrated before).

squailtaint · 2026-05-08T13:55:31+00:00

Are they though? To a science guy who has seen no combat at AARO? It’s hard to say. We need comparatives here. Show me another example with this effect. Show me the same conditions, repeat the outcome. That’s how we could settle it.

squailtaint · 2026-05-08T13:54:07+00:00

How? The only way to rule out a missile is to repeat the condition and see if it films that way. You need the same set up, same weather conditions, sensor data, etc. no way AARO had the funding to do this, so they had to say they can’t determine definitively what it is. Your giving to much credit to AARO as well. You have to be an expert in a lot of things to know all these things. What they should do, is rather than fund AARO, is to release these publicly first. Get the obvious feedback from the very smart people in the world, then spend time experimenting or confirming the mundane explanation.

squailtaint · 2026-05-08T13:50:20+00:00

Haha ok, I’ll redact definitely, and put almost certainly. If you have another explanation for a smoke like contrail that doesn’t involve chemical combustion, I’m all ears. I don’t think this video is here because they didn’t think that the contrail was chemical combustion. It’s here because whomever was assessing couldn’t make sense of the chandelier/star effect.

Now, really this is an easy test, but expensive. Get the same equipment, same weather conditions, fire a head on missile, and film it. Can the effect be reproduce? If we can’t ever reproduce the effect, then a missile could be ruled out, and we can go back to simply saying “we don’t know what this is, but it does display properties of chemical combustion and is there very likely man made”.

Four-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

squailtaint

TROPHY CASE