a reply to: JimOberg
Before I opened your pdf I thought it might be 10 pages with 5 pages about the incident over Hawaii and maybe 5 pages of comments. I never expected to
find the huge amount of excellent work you put into the over 200 pages pdf!
A lot of those 200+ pages are comments, and they were fascinating to read. I like the way you highlighted some key points needing attention in red.
The absolute refusal by some people to accept the "scientist's explanation" was astonishing, Dunning and Kruger could do more research on those
I was amazed by the variety in comments and how many people thought the re-entering debris was "maneuvering". If someone was trying to read these
witness descriptions and determine what the UFO was without knowing, I think there would be a tendency to rule out space junk because space junk
doesn't "maneuver", in fact some comments said that's why they thought it wasn't space junk. I didn't see any "maneuvering" in the videos, so I'm not
sure how that illusion occurred.
Some other comments thought it wasn't space junk because some lights were blinking. I did see blinking lights in the video. One comment suggested the
lights only appeared to blink because they were passing behind clouds that blocked their view. While at first that sounds like a plausible possibility
which may in fact have occurred with other space junk burning up in the atmosphere, I didn't think that seemed the likely cause of the blinking in
this case because if they were all passing behind the clouds, they should have all been blinking. I'm not sure exactly what caused the apparent
blinking, did you have any thoughts on that? I was wondering about some tumbling motion of the debris where it might get brighter when a longer
surface generates more plasma as it tumbles. That would be slightly analogous to the "blinking" space dandruff where tumbling particles with irregular
shapes reflect more light from the longer surfaces as they tumble, though obviously the atmospheric entry is not a reflection phenomenon.
I didn't really see a triangle in the videos, so when people saw a triangle, I thought maybe they were seeing what they wanted to see, like these
comments around pp99-100 of your pdf:
Funny aside, when I went to that channel to check out the video with the alleged "triangle", literally the first thing I got was an ad for a "tin foil
hat", seriously. It looks like a beanie but it alleges to block electromagnetic radiation like a tinfoil hat, which I found rather amusing, perhaps
speaking to the credulity of the regular audience who supports that channel.
What does the "tbs" mean in the lower right of that image screenshot?
I noticed you also mentioned the previous cases of mothership sightings like Yukon and Kiev, yet I still find people who will take an eyewitness
estimates to the distance of a UFO at face value. More people really need to get up to speed on this research to learn what it documents is true that
there seems to be little correlation between the distance estimates of witnesses, and the actual distance to the UFO. I think this seems to be some of
the most important research, yet seemingly the least known, so I appreciate you posting it to try to make it more available. However I'm not seeing a
lot of response to this thread; sometimes I get the impression a lot of people would rather watch a James Fox documentary interviewing witnesses where
he treats their estimates of distance to the UFO as credible, which this research clearly shows is far from reliable.
edit on 20201124 by Arbitrageur because: clarification