MR will tell you what to believe, so you better watch out, better not cry, better not pout, I'm telling you why...
UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Again with the thinking you know what things don't do. Nonsense.
Good thing no one said they were.
What? You think we were trying to tell you that hawks can't fly unless they're dive bombing at max speed? Make sense, man.
Straight up trolling nonsense. Reported.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Drama Dave losing an argument again and reporting it. It would be more amusing were it not so pathetic..
DeFMO is a "fast moving object" AI that tweens the information to deblur the fast moving object. See here for the results of applying DeFMO to the video:
Magical Realist:
You claimed that you could not possibly be wrong about the video showing a peregrine falcon.
Yet here you are. Wrong.
How did that happen?
"It is no more a bird or a bug than it is a flying turtle." you wrote.
But it's a bird.
I think you need to apologise to us all for making the overconfident claim you made and for being so dismissive about the idea that this UAP might be a bird. Don't you?
You will post your acknowledgement that you were wrong, with your apology, in your next post.
If you find you can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong, then I will assume you were setting out to troll this thread. It would be unfortunate if I were to be forced to come to that conclusion.
Over to you to do the right thing, then.
---
In addition, you should reflect about what went wrong in your process, to lead you to make this error so confidently.
Along with your apology, please tell me what you think you should improve about your process in your future analysis of UAP videos.
Thanks!
You claimed that you could not possibly be wrong about the video showing a peregrine falcon.
Yet here you are. Wrong.
How did that happen?
"It is no more a bird or a bug than it is a flying turtle." you wrote.
But it's a bird.
I think you need to apologise to us all for making the overconfident claim you made and for being so dismissive about the idea that this UAP might be a bird. Don't you?
You will post your acknowledgement that you were wrong, with your apology, in your next post.
If you find you can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong, then I will assume you were setting out to troll this thread. It would be unfortunate if I were to be forced to come to that conclusion.
Over to you to do the right thing, then.
---
In addition, you should reflect about what went wrong in your process, to lead you to make this error so confidently.
Along with your apology, please tell me what you think you should improve about your process in your future analysis of UAP videos.
Thanks!
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Correct. It's a bird.
Correct. This one wasn't going that fast, either.
Wrong.
Wrong.
So confident, Magical Realist, but just wrong followed by wrong followed by wrong.
What went wrong in your analysis?
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
No pride, no shame, no honor, no honesty. Yep, he's a UFOnut.
And they got it wrong.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Member has been banned for incorrigible trolling.
LOL So an illustrious computer program animates an altered image of the original like a gif and we're supposed to believe it to be a hawk now. Fraid not. The original video and the image in freeze frame looks nothing like a hawk, besides the fact that its going 3.5 miles per second. Here's a comment from the Reddit thread::
"Wait....so you used AI upscaling, which adds data that was never there, based on what it was trained on, to determine that this is a bird.... Am I getting that right?
How many images of real genuine alien spacecraft do you think they used when training the DeFMO AI?
I have dealt with machine learning AI. AI cannot resolve data that isn't there. If you want AI to be able to identify fast moving objects—as DeFMO does—then you train it on images of blurred fast moving objects and provide the un-blurred identification. If the AI has never been shown a legitimate alien spacecraft while blurry, and the same image "deblurred", then it will never resolve any blurred object into an alien spacecraft. It will always resolve it into something it has "seen".
Edit: for fuck's sake, I get lost in the weeds without stating the obvious. Peregrine Falcons, the fastest bird, can only move at their greatest speed, which is 389 km/h during a raptor dive. This is not a steep enough dive to achieve that speed and the object has been calculated to be moving faster than 389 km/h."
So no...once again no supersonic falcon I'm afraid. You should really do your own analysis rather than relying on the first impressive-sounding debunk a Google search comes up with. Are you going to apologize now?
"Wait....so you used AI upscaling, which adds data that was never there, based on what it was trained on, to determine that this is a bird.... Am I getting that right?
How many images of real genuine alien spacecraft do you think they used when training the DeFMO AI?
I have dealt with machine learning AI. AI cannot resolve data that isn't there. If you want AI to be able to identify fast moving objects—as DeFMO does—then you train it on images of blurred fast moving objects and provide the un-blurred identification. If the AI has never been shown a legitimate alien spacecraft while blurry, and the same image "deblurred", then it will never resolve any blurred object into an alien spacecraft. It will always resolve it into something it has "seen".
Edit: for fuck's sake, I get lost in the weeds without stating the obvious. Peregrine Falcons, the fastest bird, can only move at their greatest speed, which is 389 km/h during a raptor dive. This is not a steep enough dive to achieve that speed and the object has been calculated to be moving faster than 389 km/h."
So no...once again no supersonic falcon I'm afraid. You should really do your own analysis rather than relying on the first impressive-sounding debunk a Google search comes up with. Are you going to apologize now?
Last edited:
Wrong and ... wrong.
And .... wrong.
Wrong.
Doesn't even make sense.
Wrong.
Ironic, isn't it?
Mr Overconfident here is willing to insult other people and even deny the facts when they are put in front of him.
Methinks that Mr Overconfident is a troll.
Moderator note: Magical Realist has been warned for trolling.
Due to accumulated warning points, MR will be taking another break from sciforums.
---
Magical Realist:
The first thing you need to do on your return is to publish a full public apology in this thread thread for your behaviour regarding the peregrine falcon video. You need to apologise to all the people who you told were wrong when, as you found, you were wrong.
You also need to publically undertake to discuss evidence for and against UAPs (and other kinds of woo) honestly, and to avoid making definitive claims about things being true (or impossible) when you haven't actually done any analysis.
Be sure to post your apology first thing when (if) you come back.
Due to accumulated warning points, MR will be taking another break from sciforums.
---
Magical Realist:
The first thing you need to do on your return is to publish a full public apology in this thread thread for your behaviour regarding the peregrine falcon video. You need to apologise to all the people who you told were wrong when, as you found, you were wrong.
You also need to publically undertake to discuss evidence for and against UAPs (and other kinds of woo) honestly, and to avoid making definitive claims about things being true (or impossible) when you haven't actually done any analysis.
Be sure to post your apology first thing when (if) you come back.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Thank you.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/utah-drone-video-of-ufo-probably-an-insect-zip-by.10370/page-4
Many debunking vids out there.
Many debunking vids out there.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
"At 4:38 Primeau immediately assumes that the object is "moving at a high rate of speed" (just by watching, not by analysing)"
Check.
"There's then about 4 minutes of making sure it's a real video (I don't know of anyone who doesn't agree that it's a real video) "
Check.
"They then abandon the technical analysis and video forensics and flip to good old speculation and guesswork to try and work out its speed"
Check.
"At 8:35 Primeau says they can estimate the speed "based on where it's coming from" - only he doesn't know where it's coming from, he's just assuming that based on what he's been told or by briefly eyeballing it"
Check.
"8:56 The voiceover guy says "the team map out its perceived distance travelled" - note the word "perceived" - and they measure the length of the valley that they assume it travelled along, without having yet ascertained where it started, where it ended up, or that it actually did travel the length of the valley"
Check.
"There's zero mention of the more likely hypothesis that it's something small and close to the camera"
Check.
"Really, beyond verifying that the photo is real, all Primeau does is say "it looks like it starts here, the valley is this long, it's on screen for this length of time, divide those and we have its speed" - a conclusion and method entirely based on a faulty assumption "
Check.
"To me, it's almost as though the 4 minutes of fancy photo verification - not objectionable, but not really an issue - is put there to establish a sense of technical knowhow and cover over how the important part is done in a very basic and amateurish way."
Check.
"Obviously we shouldn't expect much from these entertainment shows. Just interesting to see how these clips go around and round and the straightforward explanations and more in-depth analyses are ignored; as well as how the presence of (probably hand-picked) "experts" kind of hoodwinks the viewers, when even a little thought shows they're not actually adding anything useful."
I swear I didn't paraphrase all my arguments from Metabunk.
Check.
"There's then about 4 minutes of making sure it's a real video (I don't know of anyone who doesn't agree that it's a real video) "
Check.
"They then abandon the technical analysis and video forensics and flip to good old speculation and guesswork to try and work out its speed"
Check.
"At 8:35 Primeau says they can estimate the speed "based on where it's coming from" - only he doesn't know where it's coming from, he's just assuming that based on what he's been told or by briefly eyeballing it"
Check.
"8:56 The voiceover guy says "the team map out its perceived distance travelled" - note the word "perceived" - and they measure the length of the valley that they assume it travelled along, without having yet ascertained where it started, where it ended up, or that it actually did travel the length of the valley"
Check.
"There's zero mention of the more likely hypothesis that it's something small and close to the camera"
Check.
"Really, beyond verifying that the photo is real, all Primeau does is say "it looks like it starts here, the valley is this long, it's on screen for this length of time, divide those and we have its speed" - a conclusion and method entirely based on a faulty assumption "
Check.
"To me, it's almost as though the 4 minutes of fancy photo verification - not objectionable, but not really an issue - is put there to establish a sense of technical knowhow and cover over how the important part is done in a very basic and amateurish way."
Check.
"Obviously we shouldn't expect much from these entertainment shows. Just interesting to see how these clips go around and round and the straightforward explanations and more in-depth analyses are ignored; as well as how the presence of (probably hand-picked) "experts" kind of hoodwinks the viewers, when even a little thought shows they're not actually adding anything useful."
I swear I didn't paraphrase all my arguments from Metabunk.
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
My third wife loved watching the ghosthunter shows back in the day. I immediately checked to see if I had a book handy.
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
Mysterious drones have been observed flying over New Jersey (including Grovers Mills, site of the Orson Welles reported 1938 invasion?).
apnews.com
Expect UAP reports and videos in the near future.
What do we know about the mysterious drones reported flying over New Jersey?
A large number of mysterious drones have been reported flying over parts of New Jersey in recent weeks, sparking speculation and concern over who sent them and why.
apnews.com
Expect UAP reports and videos in the near future.
Mysterious drones have been observed flying over New Jersey (including Grovers Mills, site of the Orson Welles reported 1938 invasion?).
What do we know about the mysterious drones reported flying over New Jersey?
A large number of mysterious drones have been reported flying over parts of New Jersey in recent weeks, sparking speculation and concern over who sent them and why.
Expect UAP reports and videos in the near future.
Hilarious. All the protective agencies have no idea what the source of the drones are. But somehow still divine that they are not of foreign origin and lack sufficient worthiness for being treated as spying information gatherers.
- EXCERPTS: A large number of mysterious drones have been reported flying over parts of New Jersey in recent weeks...
[...] soon sightings were reported statewide, including near the Picatinny Arsenal, a U.S. military research and manufacturing facility, and over President-elect Donald Trump’s golf course in Bedminster.
[...] A senior FBI official told the House Homeland Security Committee Wednesday the recent drone sightings above New Jersey are “concerning,” and said the agency is “actively investigating” the situation and trying to determine who is responsible.
Authorities say they do not know who is behind the drones.
[...] The Pentagon insists the drones do not represent a threat from abroad. Pentagon spokesperson Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder said Thursday that the military’s initial assessment after consulting with the Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Council - that the drones are not of foreign origin - remains unchanged.
Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said Wednesday that the aircraft are not U.S. military drones.
[...] Sightings also have been reported in neighboring New York and Pennsylvania.
Drones were also spotted last month in the U.K. The U.S. Air Force said several small unmanned aircraft were detected near four military bases in England that are used by American forces...