This video is everywhere.
It does look pretty cool.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/we...ee-Fox-6-TV-station-Wisconsin-broadcast-video
Note the quality of this incident:
- no fakery here, the feed is live, provenance= 100%
- actual news room, so not sketchy source
The chain of provenance does seem to be short. But I'm not sure that fakery is ruled out. Isn't fakery (albeit inadvertant and unintentional) the preferred mundane explanation for this? It's being attributed to a video artifact caused by photographing moving birds with a video camera with its shutter speed set below its frame rate (so as to better get night shots).
Actually only one, the camera in question. Maybe lots of people were viewing the live feed, but it was a live feed from a single camera whose settings were arguably such as to cause weird trail-effects with moving objects.
Note that this effect wouldn't have been visible to the naked eye. If anyone else besides the camera in question saw this, the preferred explanation collapses.
An excellent example of how banal things can appear exotic under the right conditions.
True. I think that it happens a lot. Many/most ufo sightings are probably attributable to this.
But probably not all of them.
Of course, we don't seem to have conclusively established that the camera settings were indeed the explanation for this. It's just some guy expressing the opinion that they could have been. With 'debunkers', so-called "skeptics", that's often all we ever see. A might explain B, so A is the explanation for B.
In the philosophy of science that's often called a
just so story, an unverified proposed narrative explanation for something. In some interesting ways it's more akin to myth than to science. Others have argued that what are dismissed as 'just-so stories' are merely hypotheses, a necessary part of science. But that isn't exactly right, since the problem being criticized isn't hypothesizing, but rather reliance on a proposed hypothesis without further testing or verification, in simple confidence that it's the answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
If this hadn't been solved, it would surely have stood out for decades as one of the highest confidence sightings on record.
Maybe not if it's examined critically, since it's all coming from just a single source, a single camera.
And yet, it's not exotic.
True. Again, I'll say that I think that this happens a lot, in many/most UFO cases. (I've seen a couple of apparent UFOs myself that subsequently resolved into mundane things seen under unfamiliar conditions.)
But once again,
this kind of episode doesn't really justify the conclusion that all UFO reports can be dismissed as easily. I fear that's the conclusion that Sciforums' less intelligent participants will draw from a thread like this.
There are UFO episodes (such as that 2004 San Diego event) that were observed by multiple trained eye witnesses from multiple directions, recorded on cameras in multiple wavelengths (IR and visible) and simultaneously observed on radar. A single instrument set to the wrong setting wouldn't explain something like that.
-
