UFO Found on Ocean Floor?

[LeGOATski]

6 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Any updates on this?

[Warcodered]

https://www.timesnownews.com/viral/worlds-clearest-ufo-photo-revealed-after-30-years-its-called-the-calvine-photo-article-93580763

 

[K-9]

23 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

https://www.timesnownews.com/viral/worlds-clearest-ufo-photo-revealed-after-30-years-its-called-the-calvine-photo-article-93580763

 

I look forward to the debunking. 

[That's No Moon]

14 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I look forward to the debunking. 

30 years ago was 1992 so that picture basically had to be taken on film. The is zero motion blur on the jet that was stated to be flying.  Now, it could be a Harrier so it's possible that it could have been hovering but it is EXTREMELY unlikely that they would do that in front of an unknown vehicle, plus the plane appears to be banking left. The unknown craft was stated to be hovering in the air.  There was no motion blur on the background or foreground to indicate the photographer was panning with the moving objects and since one object was stationary and the other was moving at likely several hundred miles per hour at what appears to be a close proximity to the photographer I find it unlikely that there would be no blur on the jet.  Example, take a picture of a baseball flying past a hitter from a side angle.  The hitter is not moving, the ball is moving at 90-100mph. There will be some motion blur unless you are using really good equipment. Take a look at this picture.  It's a modern photo taken with a really really good professional camera, off at least a monopod. The bat and the ball show blur and the batter and catcher don't.  In a picture like the disputed one you'd expect the UFO to be clear and crisp and the jet to have some level of blur. Likely a lot because it would be moving 5 or 6 times faster than the ball in the baseball picture I linked. Also, this was reportedly taken by "hikers" so no tripod set up and probably not a super expensive camera either because who takes a hugely expensive, relatively fragile, camera hiking? Unless you are there specifically to shoot landscapes and nature shots you wouldn't lug all of that crap around. It's heavy and in 1992 it was heavier.  Looking at the cloud cover and flat light that day it seems unlikely that someone just happened to be hiking up a mountain with thousands of dollars worth of heavy camera gear to take pictures so at best you're talking about a 35mm camera that fits in your pocket or a small backpack.  Those don't do a lot. You're also limited to the film.  Let's assume they just loaded a new roll.  They get 24 shots. Maybe 36.  Burst mode isn't a thing, especially in a camera like that, and shutter speeds are limited.  

[Warcodered]

1 hour ago, That's No Moon said:

30 years ago was 1992 so that picture basically had to be taken on film. The is zero motion blur on the jet that was stated to be flying.  Now, it could be a Harrier so it's possible that it could have been hovering but it is EXTREMELY unlikely that they would do that in front of an unknown vehicle, plus the plane appears to be banking left. The unknown craft was stated to be hovering in the air.  There was no motion blur on the background or foreground to indicate the photographer was panning with the moving objects and since one object was stationary and the other was moving at likely several hundred miles per hour at what appears to be a close proximity to the photographer I find it unlikely that there would be no blur on the jet.  Example, take a picture of a baseball flying past a hitter from a side angle.  The hitter is not moving, the ball is moving at 90-100mph. There will be some motion blur unless you are using really good equipment. Take a look at this picture.  It's a modern photo taken with a really really good professional camera, off at least a monopod. The bat and the ball show blur and the batter and catcher don't.  In a picture like the disputed one you'd expect the UFO to be clear and crisp and the jet to have some level of blur. Likely a lot because it would be moving 5 or 6 times faster than the ball in the baseball picture I linked. Also, this was reportedly taken by "hikers" so no tripod set up and probably not a super expensive camera either because who takes a hugely expensive, relatively fragile, camera hiking? Unless you are there specifically to shoot landscapes and nature shots you wouldn't lug all of that crap around. It's heavy and in 1992 it was heavier.  Looking at the cloud cover and flat light that day it seems unlikely that someone just happened to be hiking up a mountain with thousands of dollars worth of heavy camera gear to take pictures so at best you're talking about a 35mm camera that fits in your pocket or a small backpack.  Those don't do a lot. You're also limited to the film.  Let's assume they just loaded a new roll.  They get 24 shots. Maybe 36.  Burst mode isn't a thing, especially in a camera like that, and shutter speeds are limited.  

 

[Augie]

3 hours ago, K-9 said:

I look forward to the debunking. 

 

I love a good debunking! If we “debunk” this, can we “bunk” something else? 

[K-9]

22 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I love a good debunking! If we “debunk” this, can we “bunk” something else? 

Feel free to bunk as much as you want and at your leisure. 

53 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

 

I remain skeptical in the truest scientific definition of the word. 

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Here's an update on this:

 

"Eight years ago, a meteor believed to have been 2 feet long entered Earth's atmosphere at more than 100,000 miles an hour before exploding into tiny, hot fragments and falling into the South Pacific Ocean.

 

Some scientists believe it came from another star system, which would make it the first known interstellar object of its size to impact Earth.

Now, professor Avi Loeb, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, is planning an expedition to retrieve fragments of the meteor from the ocean floor. By analyzing the debris, he is hoping to determine the object's origins — even going so far as to make the extraordinary suggestion that it could be a technological object created by aliens."

 

More at https://www.npr.org/2022/08/31/1119941103/astronomer-searches-ocean-extraterrestrial-meteor-alien-life-avi-loeb

[4merper4mer]

5 hours ago, ICanSleepWhenI'mDead said:

Here's an update on this:

 

"Eight years ago, a meteor believed to have been 2 feet long entered Earth's atmosphere at more than 100,000 miles an hour before exploding into tiny, hot fragments and falling into the South Pacific Ocean.

 

Some scientists believe it came from another star system, which would make it the first known interstellar object of its size to impact Earth.

Now, professor Avi Loeb, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, is planning an expedition to retrieve fragments of the meteor from the ocean floor. By analyzing the debris, he is hoping to determine the object's origins — even going so far as to make the extraordinary suggestion that it could be a technological object created by aliens."

 

More at https://www.npr.org/2022/08/31/1119941103/astronomer-searches-ocean-extraterrestrial-meteor-alien-life-avi-loeb

Not only is he an idiot, he’s an idiot who is going to burn a boatload of money.

[Bad Things]

I just saw this story on the local NZ news site, and am now wondering if I should head down to Dunedin and see if I can find some of that alien technology!

 

Hunt is on for a meteorite after fireball soars over New Zealand

[4merper4mer]

Any updates on this?

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

Any updates on this?

 

Well, Elvis (yes, Elvis) has recently discussed the high potential upside of Harvard professor Avi Loeb's project to search the Pacific for any underwater fragments of a 2014 meteor that could reveal remnants of alien technology.

 

I sh*t you not:

 

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/9/21/avi-loeb-pacific-search/

[Warcodered]

 

Finally we have our answers.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

In case anybody was wondering, here's a recent update on this:

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a29417939/unidentified-submarine-objects/

 

"Something is out there—in the skies and beneath the waves."

 

Do sources of underwater UFO info get any more authoritative than Popular Mechanics ?

[Augie]

22 minutes ago, ICanSleepWhenI'mDead said:

In case anybody was wondering, here's a recent update on this:

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a29417939/unidentified-submarine-objects/

 

"Something is out there—in the skies and beneath the waves."

 

Do sources of underwater UFO info get any more authoritative than Popular Mechanics ?

 

I usually go to Cosmopolitan for definite info. 

[Captain Caveman]

On 8/6/2022 at 10:53 PM, 4merper4mer said:

Any updates on this?

yeah

[ChevyVanMiller]

These stories all used to come from fringe outlets, but, increasingly, the mainstream media are covering them with more and more frequency.
 

Edited October 23, 2022 by ChevyVanMiller

[4merper4mer]

9 hours ago, ChevyVanMiller said:

These stories all used to come from fringe outlets, but, increasingly, the mainstream media are covering them with more and more frequency.
 

Because increasingly the mainstream media consists of fringe level critical thinking.

[Buffalo Super Fan]

Too me this like in the 1970’s as a kid when you went camping adults claimed they saw big foot the last time they went camping. I believe they saw something sitting around the camp fire drinking beer as we kids toasted marshmallows. What do you think they saw BSF? When it is dark and you either getting a little drunk or had a buzz on a bear could look like big foot. Big foot was big back then with the Bionic Man television show had professional wrestler Andre the Giant play big foot. More people would swear they saw big foot remember there was no internet or 24 hour news channels so urban legend became real for a lot of people. There was no harm you just laughed at it in my opinion. Go Bills! Let’s Go Buffalo 

Edited October 27, 2022 by Buffalo Super Fan

[4merper4mer]

Any updates on this?