UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

The big problem with all of your reasoning is that you flip backwards and forwards between seeing it as a three-dimensional movement and a two-dimensional movement.

An absolutely incorrect and unfounded assertion. Where is your evidence in support of that assertion?

In order for the object to appear to slow down it doesn't have to be curving away from us or actually slowing down, instead it could start off close to us and get further away, i.e. travelling in a straight line at an angle away from us.

Sure, but then the object would also be diminishing is size and there is no such diminishing across the period between 6:17 and 7:03 (while notably after this period there definitely is…).

The result would be that its apparent speed across our line of sight would get lower as it gets further away. This is called proper motion, and is inversely related to actual speed across the line of sight.

Actually, strictly speaking, “proper motion” is the apparent motion of an object travelling across our field of view with respect to background objects (such as the stars). In the video the object seems to tangentially cross our field of view while slowing down.

However, I have absolutely no idea how you get to relate that “proper” motion as being inversely proportional to its actual (or true) motion. An assessment of the object’s true speed would require knowledge of the angle it is travelling away from us on (and perhaps even the distance the object is away from us would help). That is, the shallower the angle, the closer to proper motion will be to the true motion; and the greater angle, the greater the deviation.

Now interestingly (and having already demonstrated your conceptual error above – but to diagrammatically represent it to make it crystal clear), imagine an object travelling away from us at a constant speed at a specific angle in a straight line. We can apply basic trigonometry to show that the proper motion is precisely and directly proportional to the true motion (no inverse rules required at all).

You will note that an object travelling away from us at constant velocity (true motion) when divided into equal distances, causes corresponding equal distances along the line of proper motion – meaning of course that the “proper” velocity is directly proportional to the true velocity and critically does not change as the object ravels away from us. That is, it does not appear to slow down at all. Only a curving trajectory will do that (as per the diagram in my previous post).

If we know x (proper velocity), and we know angle a, then we can work out (using trigonometry) the true velocity. Thus the following statement from you is absolutely in error.

If you double the distance you halve the proper motion, provided the tangential speed remains constant. This would lead to an apparent steady slowing of the object's motion from right to left.

This scenario only occurs if the true motion is curved.

The fact that MIR remains in roughly the same place in the video merely indicates that any object relatively nearby will also move less than the very distant stars.

Actually, I think you may find the stars are moving substantially more than the closer object – but of course you seem now to be flipping between true motion and proper motion in your statements. This is as confusing for the reader as I am sure it is for you.

This idea would be supported by the fact that the object also gets continually fainter (on average).

“On average”? Actually between 6:17 and 7:03, the object actually maintains a constant brightness and size. It is only after 7:03 (when the trajectory undergoes a number of changes) that the object both diminishes in size and gets fainter.

As for where the Earth is in respect to our POV, it's incredibly important, because I think the Earth is down and slightly to the left, in which case what we're seeing is a satellite in a lower orbit overtaking us, and then following its orbit around the Earth. It moves off into the distance, apparently slowing down due to its increasing distance (see above), and as it does so it starts to curve downwards, slowly at first, and then more quickly, getting fainter all the time until it gets too faint to see.

Oh I see… it is a satellite. But the trajectory changes are rather abrupt for that hypothesis don’t you think?

Not once in all of the time it's on frame does it make a sudden course change, nor does it change the sense of its course change. It is always changing from left and up to roughly straight down.

It is clear now that you have not watched the correct video (or are not observing the correct object). Please do so here ((http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related). The object in question appears at 6:17 ( I downloaded a copy and play it in VLC Player so the timing might not be exact) at the lower right bottom of frame some small distance in from the right corner. It then continues at an angle upward and to the left in a straight line until 7:03, where it changes trajectory to travel (still to the left) parallel to the bottom of frame. It changes direction two more times (the next is a change to head it down toward the bottom left corner and the next is a change to head it directly down, parallel to the left edge of frame) and it even comes to a complete halt after the last direction change, maintaining position until it moves off downward again to disappear.

If I had the time I could do some more precise positional measurements, but I'm afraid it would be very tricky…

Not really, I have done them above.

…as I'd have to take account of the fact that the shuttle's motions would be projected onto the object (proper motion and parallax, assuming it's a nearby satellite)…

No… the shuttle's motion can be determined from the background stars (as the camera is fixed) in conjunction with our perspective on MIR.

However, I will admit that parallax is a tricky concept here. As we have no objective indication of actual object distance, we cannot accurately determine the affect of parallax at all. Nevertheless, given that the object maintains size and brightness over the period under direct discussion (from 6:17 to 7:03), it seems unlikely that parallax would significantly affect the calculations (and certainly in any event not to affect an apparent five fold velocity decrease in proper motion). However, after the trajectory changes it may have a minor role to play…

…and I'm currently far too busy writing a paper on stellar motions and distances.

For your sake then I sincerely hope your calculations in that paper do not contain such mathematical and conceptual errors as I have demonstrated in your workings above.

 

[Jocce]

We can apply basic trigonometry to show that the proper motion is precisely and directly proportional to the true motion (no inverse rules required at all).

Are you now claiming that an object traveling away from an observer at an angle will appear to speed up the further away it gets. This is something that clearly goes against observation so surely you would like to clarify.

 

[wollery]

An absolutely incorrect and unfounded assertion. Where is your evidence in support of that assertion?

In the last post I responded to, and again in this post.

Sure, but then the object would also be diminishing is size and there is no such diminishing across the period between 6:17 and 7:03 (while notably after this period there definitely is…).

What size are we measuring? Ah, yes, the apparent size of a bright glare of reflected sunlight. What we are almost certainly not measuring is the actual angular size of the physical object.

Actually, strictly speaking, “proper motion” is the apparent motion of an object travelling across our field of view with respect to background objects (such as the stars). In the video the object seems to tangentially cross our field of view while slowing down.

Seems to. That's the fundamentally important phrase in that paragraph.

However, I have absolutely no idea how you get to relate that “proper” motion as being inversely proportional to its actual (or true) motion.

You are correct. I mis-typed. Proper motion is inversely proportional to distance.

An assessment of the object’s true speed would require knowledge of the angle it is travelling away from us on (and perhaps even the distance the object is away from us would help). That is, the shallower the angle, the closer to proper motion will be to the true motion; and the greater angle, the greater the deviation.

Now interestingly (and having already demonstrated your conceptual error above – but to diagrammatically represent it to make it crystal clear), imagine an object travelling away from us at a constant speed at a specific angle in a straight line. We can apply basic trigonometry to show that the proper motion is precisely and directly proportional to the true motion (no inverse rules required at all).

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=574&pictureid=3645[/qimg]

You will note that an object travelling away from us at constant velocity (true motion) when divided into equal distances, causes corresponding equal distances along the line of proper motion – meaning of course that the “proper” velocity is directly proportional to the true velocity and critically does not change as the object ravels away from us. That is, it does not appear to slow down at all. Only a curving trajectory will do that (as per the diagram in my previous post).

If we know x (proper velocity), and we know angle a, then we can work out (using trigonometry) the true velocity. Thus the following statement from you is absolutely in error.

Well done, you can project an object's horizontal motion onto the horizontal plane. Unfortunately that would only be relevant for an observer travelling along the horizontal plane at the same speed as the object's projected horizontal motion.

So let's make your above example realistic by adding a stationary observer.

You'll notice that as the object passes the observer at an angle, but moving in a straight line, the angle that the equal distance division z projects to the observer gets smaller every time. That is, the projected apparent distance the object travels decreases as the object gets further away, i.e. a > b > c > d > e > f > g > h. In other words, it appears to slow down.

In your version there would be no such thing as proper motion, because we'd always measure the tangential velocity of an object, and would only need to measure radial velocity to know an object's true spacial velocity. Shame it doesn't work that way in the real world, it would make my job a hell of a lot easier. What we actually measure is the projection of the angular change in position.

This scenario only occurs if the true motion is curved.

No. See above.

Actually, I think you may find the stars are moving substantially more than the closer object – but of course you seem now to be flipping between true motion and proper motion in your statements. This is as confusing for the reader as I am sure it is for you.

You say that the stars move more, I say that the object moves less. I think you'll find that they mean the same thing. Who's confused?

“On average”? Actually between 6:17 and 7:03, the object actually maintains a constant brightness and size. It is only after 7:03 (when the trajectory undergoes a number of changes) that the object both diminishes in size and gets fainter.

A number of changes? Does it zig left and then right? As far as I can see it keeps turning in the same sense, its vertical speed dropping to zero before it starts to move down the frame, whilst its movement from right to left slow until it's practically zero. Without more detailed measurements I couldn't tell you exactly what the speed changes are, but "a number of changes" is at the very least an exaggeration, unless the number you are thinking of is about 2.

Oh I see… it is a satellite. But the trajectory changes are rather abrupt for that hypothesis don’t you think?

No

It is clear now that you have not watched the correct video (or are not observing the correct object). Please do so here ((http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related). The object in question appears at 6:17 ( I downloaded a copy and play it in VLC Player so the timing might not be exact) at the lower right bottom of frame some small distance in from the right corner. It then continues at an angle upward and to the left in a straight line until 7:03, where it changes trajectory to travel (still to the left) parallel to the bottom of frame. It changes direction two more times (the next is a change to head it down toward the bottom left corner and the next is a change to head it directly down, parallel to the left edge of frame) and it even comes to a complete halt after the last direction change, maintaining position until it moves off downward again to disappear.

Not really, I have done them above.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't trust your measurements, since you seem to think that simply projecting horizontal motion onto the horizontal axis is equivalent to constructing observational sight-lines.

Did you create a world co-ordinate system from the stars in the field of view? What measurements did you make of MIR's motion? How did you account for the motion of the shuttle? Did you try to account for the orbital motion of the satellite (assuming that's what it is)?

No… the shuttle's motion can be determined from the background stars (as the camera is fixed) in conjunction with our perspective on MIR.

However, I will admit that parallax is a tricky concept here. As we have no objective indication of actual object distance, we cannot accurately determine the affect of parallax at all. Nevertheless, given that the object maintains size and brightness over the period under direct discussion (from 6:17 to 7:03), it seems unlikely that parallax would significantly affect the calculations (and certainly in any event not to affect an apparent five fold velocity decrease in proper motion). However, after the trajectory changes it may have a minor role to play…

The problem here is that you assume that constant brightness is the same as constant size and distance, which is not necessarily the case. Once you reach the saturation point of your detector (whether film or digital) there is no more brightness to be portrayed, so a very bright object will appear no more bright than an object at the saturation limit of the detector. Only when you get below that limit will you start to see a difference. And even below that limit, for digital detectors, there is also a non-linear response limit.

Look at the reflections from MIR. Are the tips of the solar panels really that big?

For your sake then I sincerely hope your calculations in that paper do not contain such mathematical and conceptual errors as I have demonstrated in your workings above.

Good enough for it to be accepted for peer reviewed publication in a high impact journal pending some minor corrections.

 

[wollery]

We can apply basic trigonometry to show that the proper motion is precisely and directly proportional to the true motion (no inverse rules required at all).

Are you now claiming that an object traveling away from an observer at an angle will appear to speed up the further away it gets. This is something that clearly goes against observation so surely you would like to clarify.

Actually, he's correct, proper motion is directly proportional to the true motion. But the important point is that it's inversely proportional to distance. If the true motion remains constant and the distance increases the proper motion will get smaller.

 

[EHocking]

On the evidence it is clear you have simply imagined without calculation your (second) “perspective” diagram. To correct this oversight, please redraw your diagram showing the calculations where you have worked out the angles necessary to show correct “perspective” in relation to the distances and velocities observed in the video.

No.

It was quite obvious from my post that the diagrams were only to demonstrate how the diminishing distances between each successive 5sec interval could be explained by a body moving away from the observer at constant speed, at an angle, could be explained, i.e., "The first is the "plan" view of a body moving at constant speed along a flat plane."

Second, even though you imply that your (second) "perspective" diagram somehow correctly represents perspective, your object seems to be travelling off into another (alternate?) universe… (in a correctly conceived and drawn perspective diagram, all parallel lines should meet at a single point – clearly none of your lines are going to do that). Are you trying to tell us something?

The diagram was merely cut off at the top. Of course the two lines that make up the sides of the diagram will converge at a point if projected further.

Finally, if we do accept for a moment that your “perspective” does play a significant role, then the size of the object should diminish in precise proportion to the perspective you indicate - that is (in the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related) the object should be smaller by a factor of five over the period 6:17 to 7:03 (Is the object in the video one fifth the size at 7:03 when compared to its size at 6:17? Of course it is not…

Of course it does not, because my diagrams were merely examples of the affect of perspective in an effort to explain to you the effect you were observing and not a measurement of positions in the video. Wollery's previous post explains this further.

Here, by the way, is a correct general representation of the object’s trajectory between 6:17 and 7:03 - IF we assume constant velocity.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=574&pictureid=3641

I have no idea what you have plotted there, but it bears no resemblance to the path tracked by the object across the POV on the video. If it is meant to be a "plan" view, since the distance from the observer is unknown and unknowable, you are not in a position to claim that is a "correct" representation of the object's trajectory. Further, if that is representative of 5 sec intervals it represents only 25 secs. Therefore NOT representative.

Below is a plot of the observed track across the video screen in 5sec intervals from 6:18.

x,y coordinates are pixel measurements of the centre of the object.
Origin being the top left-hand corner of the video grab.

But as a matter of interest, let us go back to assuming your “perspective”. At 7:04 the object deviates significantly. Now that you have the object so far away from any potential motivating force (and certainly gravity is a constant force, so could not be the culprit in such a deviation), I would then be extremely interested to see how you might then explain such a significant deviation.

I disagree that it is a significant deviation, when viewing the plot of the trajectory. It resembles an object on a curved trajectory (i.e., orbit) observed from a position along a different curved trajectory (i.e., different orbit).

It is also interesting to note that after the object’s first deviation at 7:04 (there are two more deviations after that*), the object does begin to diminish in size, indicating that it is now travelling away from us

It diminishes in size throughout its transit of the video frame.
Below are screen shots at 6:18, 6:48 and 7:18.
It looks to me like the relative size is diminishing in each of the screen grabs.

So some critical errors in your post have been indicated. First, can you show us your calculations for your “perspective” diagram, or have you simply made it up? Second, if, for the sake of argument, we assume that your “perspective” does play the role you indicate, how then do you explain subsequent trajectory deviations and changes in object size? Until you can satisfactorily and plausibly answer these questions we are entitled to dismiss your “diagrams” and contentions as error filled and unfounded.

Done and done.
(as I am with this thread - back to lurking for me, carry on Wollery et al).

 

[Rramjet]

You are correct. I mis-typed. Proper motion is inversely proportional to distance.

Correction accepted. And I can also accept your correction of my (partly) erroneous conceptualisation as per the following:

Well done, you can project an object's horizontal motion onto the horizontal plane. Unfortunately that would only be relevant for an observer travelling along the horizontal plane at the same speed as the object's projected horizontal motion.

So let's make your above example realistic by adding a stationary observer.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/9574c835ea6de054.jpg[/qimg]

You'll notice that as the object passes the observer at an angle, but moving in a straight line, the angle that the equal distance division z projects to the observer gets smaller every time. That is, the projected apparent distance the object travels decreases as the object gets further away, i.e. a > b > c > d > e > f > g > h. In other words, it appears to slow down.

In your version there would be no such thing as proper motion, because we'd always measure the tangential velocity of an object, and would only need to measure radial velocity to know an object's true spacial velocity. Shame it doesn't work that way in the real world, it would make my job a hell of a lot easier. What we actually measure is the projection of the angular change in position.

Okay, I can accept your reasoning here. Your diagrammatic representation shows your hypothesis clearly while my diagram requires, as you say, the observer to be moving along the horizontal plane at the same speed as the object's projected horizontal motion.

Under your hypothesis then the object could plausibly be (as you say) a satellite heading away from us at a constant velocity in a straight line and thus we are (ostensibly) able to successfully describe the object’s observed motion between 6:17 and 7:03.

However, the observed motion, as measured directly from the video, shows that the object could not be maintaining a constant velocity (either that or not maintaining a straight trajectory) because the observed ratio was actually (on a scale of 5cm intervals in VLC Player on a 19” screen…) 5, 4.5, 3, 2, 2, 1.5, 1.03, 1.01, 1.01, 1.01… (that is, something like, slowing down, maintaining speed for a short while, slowing down, then maintaining speed again…)

Nevertheless, for the sake of expediency, lets forget those minor details and run with your hypothesis. I have created a diagrammatic representation to aid further discussion:

In the diagram we have a three dimensional representation (Horizontal = X, Vertical = Y and depth = Z). The “Observed motion” arrow is wholly contained on the XY plane while the “True motion” arrow (representing your hypothetical) extends from the XY plane “back into the page” (at some indeterminate angle) in relation to the Z plane.

So far we have hypothetically described the observed motion of the object between points a and b on the diagram (6:17 to 7:03 in the video) (your diagram represent the triangle between point "a", the "observer" and "True motion").

However, under your hypothesis, what could possibly happen to the object (satellite) to cause its trajectory change between points b and c (7:04 to 7:25). Then c to d (7:26 to 8:00)? Then at point d the object halts all observed motion completely! - until about 8:18 when it suddenly “takes off” again, to continue downward from point d to when it finally disappears somewhere around point e.

Notably the three trajectory changes (at points b, c and d) are quite discrete events.

Now, if we maintain your satellite hypothesis and try to extend the “True motion” arrow (in whichever 3D direction we like that can possibly produce the observed motion between points b and c), we run into a spot of bother...

The only way we can reproduce the observed direction change is to change the direction or the True motion arrow (if we simply continued it on as is, then the observed motion would simply continue along the observed ab line). So if it is a satellite… what could possibly have caused that true direction change? …and we must continue to change the direction of true motion thereafter (at points c and d). …and that is even before we consider how the true motion might cause the object to come to an observed complete halt…

A satellite? The hypothesis is becoming increasingly implausible…


Lest people get the wrong impression (that I am simply a “true believer” and illogically opposing merely for the sake of opposing in order to somehow maintain my belief system) I can also accept the following reasoning from you:

The problem here is that you assume that constant brightness is the same as constant size and distance, which is not necessarily the case. Once you reach the saturation point of your detector (whether film or digital) there is no more brightness to be portrayed, so a very bright object will appear no more bright than an object at the saturation limit of the detector. Only when you get below that limit will you start to see a difference. And even below that limit, for digital detectors, there is also a non-linear response limit.

Look at the reflections from MIR. Are the tips of the solar panels really that big?

I am truly attempting to sort out how the object’s observed motion could correlate with a mundane object in the context observed. Thus I do appreciate your input here Wollery. Your considered and informative reasoning ability makes for a welcome change and truly advances the debate. Clearly I do not have the depth of applied mathematical knowledge in this context as yourself – I am simply “calling it as I see it”. If you can continue to use that applied mathematical ability to describe the rest of the object’s journey – then you might even get me accepting your (mundane) hypothesis. I am still a ways off doing that that yet though – but rest assured, I can and will accept solid reasoning where I see it.

 

[Rramjet]

No.

No? You mean you will not or cannot? Either way, unless you produce the calculations we are entitled to dismiss the diagram as not representative of the real world.

It was quite obvious from my post that the diagrams were only to demonstrate how the diminishing distances between each successive 5sec interval could be explained by a body moving away from the observer at constant speed, at an angle, could be explained, i.e., "The first is the "plan" view of a body moving at constant speed along a flat plane."

Well they seem to have failed in that objective. However, Wollery’s diagram (showing his workings) succeeded.

The diagram was merely cut off at the top. Of course the two lines that make up the sides of the diagram will converge at a point if projected further.

But in such a diagram all parallel lines must converge at that point and that includes your interval lines – which do not.

Of course it does not, because my diagrams were merely examples of the affect of perspective in an effort to explain to you the effect you were observing and not a measurement of positions in the video. Wollery's previous post explains this further.

But as your diagrams are erroneous then they do not work as you intended.

I have no idea what you have plotted there, but it bears no resemblance to the path tracked by the object across the POV on the video. If it is meant to be a "plan" view, since the distance from the observer is unknown and unknowable, you are not in a position to claim that is a "correct" representation of the object's trajectory.

It is a correct hypothetical representative explanation of how the true motion (curving) of an object travelling at a constant velocity could cause the observed (straight line) motion we observe.

Further, if that is representative of 5 sec intervals it represents only 25 secs. Therefore NOT representative.

I actually measured the observed velocity at 6:18; 6:23; 6:28; 6:33; 6:38; 6:43; 6:48; 6:53; 6:58; 7:03… that’s 45 seconds and represents the entirety of the object’s observed straight trajectory journey (minus the first and last second) between when we first see it (at 6:17) and when it first changes direction (at 7:04). I did not include all the intervals in my diagram. All I claimed was that the diagram was a schematic representation of the object’s observed straight line velocity (from 5 in the first 5 sec interval to 1 in the last 5 sec interval – thus 5, 4, 3, 2, 1) and that this observation could be hypothetically explained by a true curved motion of an object heading away from us at constant velocity (accepting your hypothesis that it was actually doing that).

Below is a plot of the observed track across the video screen in 5sec intervals from 6:18.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/26614c83f36f2134b.gif[/qimg]

x,y coordinates are pixel measurements of the centre of the object.

Origin being the top left-hand corner of the video grab.I disagree that it is a significant deviation, when viewing the plot of the trajectory. It resembles an object on a curved trajectory (i.e., orbit) observed from a position along a different curved trajectory (i.e., different orbit).

Ummm, okay… How about we do an accurate graph showing the whole of the object’s trajectory shall we.

Methodology:
1. Open video in VLC Player.
2. Pause video
3. Move slider to 6:18
4. Take a snapshot (using inbuilt VLC Player snapshot facility) - producing a jpg image file
5. Play video
6. Pause video at 6:23
7. Take a snapshot
8. Repeat steps 5, 6 and 7 - pausing at 5 second intervals (this produces 28 jpg snapshot files) – until the object can no longer be discerned
9. Open the 28 images in Adobe Photoshop
10. Taking the each in turn fit each to screen and place the cursor in the exact centre of the object image
11. In Photoshop’s navigator under the Info tab, read off the X and Y co-ordinates.
12. Open a graphical software package (I am using GraphPad Prism – but I guess MS Excel would do the job as well)
13. Enter the co-ordinates in all 33 images of the object into a data table.
14. Save the resulting graph as a jpg file.
15. Return it to Photoshop to save it for the correct size limit of the JREF forum

Note: The object is travelling from right to left.

Now, it can clearly be seen that there are four distinct trajectories here (and that the object hangs around for a while before embarking on the last of them). Also that the velocity seems to change significantly only during the first (apart from where it halts motion before the fourth - and though they cannot be seen, there are actually four data points where it does halt - only two can be seen in the graph above).

It diminishes in size throughout its transit of the video frame.
Below are screen shots at 6:18, 6:48 and 7:18.
It looks to me like the relative size is diminishing in each of the screen grabs.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/26614c83fcbc0e84d.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/26614c83fcd0deb9d.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/26614c83fce26239f.jpg[/qimg]

You may be correct… (however I would need to see a greater sample size from you as the object does seem to be “pulsating” slightly as it moves and your three samples may have caught the object on alternate pulses or an in between mode). Wollery’s ‘saturation hypothesis may also be correct… Hypothetically I have also accepted that the part of the journey under discussion could be caused by an object heading away from us (see my previous post above).

 

[wollery]

Now we're getting somewhere.

However, your method for measuring the trajectory of the objects (as you describe it above) is seriously flawed. Remember that not only are the background stars moving, but also MIR doesn't stay exactly where it is in the frame (as you yourself pointed out). This is where the problem with taking precise measurements of the object come in - our observing platform isn't stationary, and that movement will be projected to some degree onto the object.

However, not all is lost, you have fixed reference points - the stars form a background, and MIR gives us a foreground comparison. What I would do is measure the movement of MIR within the frame and adjust the apparent position of the object relatively, for instance, if MIR moves up the frame 0.1cm then you need to adjust the measured position of the object down the frame 0.1cm. Remember, the camera is focused on MIR, so that's the image's zero point, not the bottom left corner of the frame. Pick at least three easily discernible points on MIR and take an average, in order to allow for the fact that the aspect ratio of MIR may be changing. Use the same points on MIR for every measurement.

Every measurement of the object should give its position relative to MIR, not to the corner of the frame.

You might also, if you have the time, try doing the same for the object's motion relative to the stars, see what sort of trajectory that produces. To do that measure positions of the stars and adjust the object's position for an average of the change in the stars' positions across the image.

 

[Jocce]

Actually, he's correct, proper motion is directly proportional to the true motion. But the important point is that it's inversely proportional to distance. If the true motion remains constant and the distance increases the proper motion will get smaller.

Yeah, sloppy reading on my part. I was under the impression that he was arguing against your post that said "apparent speed across our line of sight would get lower as it gets further away". I should learn to not make comments before breakfast

 

[Rramjet]

Now we're getting somewhere.

However, your method for measuring the trajectory of the objects (as you describe it above) is seriously flawed. Remember that not only are the background stars moving, but also MIR doesn't stay exactly where it is in the frame (as you yourself pointed out). This is where the problem with taking precise measurements of the object come in - our observing platform isn't stationary, and that movement will be projected to some degree onto the object.

However, not all is lost, you have fixed reference points - the stars form a background, and MIR gives us a foreground comparison. What I would do is measure the movement of MIR within the frame and adjust the apparent position of the object relatively, for instance, if MIR moves up the frame 0.1cm then you need to adjust the measured position of the object down the frame 0.1cm. Remember, the camera is focused on MIR, so that's the image's zero point, not the bottom left corner of the frame. Pick at least three easily discernible points on MIR and take an average, in order to allow for the fact that the aspect ratio of MIR may be changing. Use the same points on MIR for every measurement.

Every measurement of the object should give its position relative to MIR, not to the corner of the frame.

You might also, if you have the time, try doing the same for the object's motion relative to the stars, see what sort of trajectory that produces. To do that measure positions of the stars and adjust the object's position for an average of the change in the stars' positions across the image.

As you say, we can adjust the hypothetical true motion of the object using the stars and MIR as reference points. However, taking into account the whole of the observed trajectory of the object, such an exercise makes the satellite hypothesis even more problematic.

For example (observing the 3D diagram in my previous reply to you), between points a and b (6:18 to 7:03 on the video), and noting the relative movement of the three most prominent stars in the left of frame (probably Orion’s “belt”) we can notice that they drift pretty much straight down by about 9% of the distance of the frame (over the period 6:18 to 7:03). This means of course that our POV has rotated upward by 9% over that period.

However, MIR itself is heading diagonally upward and to the right – countering, and even overcoming, that rotation. Considering the upward component motion of MIR first, this must mean that the shuttle is heading downward (in relation to MIR), faster than it is rotating upward (in relation to the stars). That this conceptualisation is true is also shown by observing the upper tips of MIR’s solar panels; that is, the foremost tip moves upward toward the hindmost tip.

But MIR is also moving to the right. Now this movement cannot be explained by a rotation of the shuttle (because if rotation were the explanation, Orion’s belt would also shift proportionally in the opposite direction – to the right – and this would take them away from the edge of frame by the same amount as the purported rotation - and we do not note this, so the shuttle must also be moving to the leftward in relation to MIR. This can also be supported by the fact that the solar panels are observed to separate from each other, the foremost moving further to the right than the hindmost.

So, putting it all together, the shuttle is generally rotating our POV upward (a continuous rotation as indicated by the steady, uninterrupted movement of the stars in Orion downward) while also moving diagonally down and to the left in relation to MIR (this latter movement is not continuous. As can be seen over the whole video, adjustments in this motion are apparent as MIR subsequently shifts back again in the opposite direction - and over the whole video, can be seen to generally “bobble” back and forth, as shuttle trajectory changes are initiated in order to transcribe an orbit around MIR – as the voiceover informs us that is what the shuttle is doing).

So, where does all that leave us in relation to the object itself?

First, if we adjust for the drift of the stars - and given the observed straight line trajectory - and given a constant velocity - that would mean the true motion (true trajectory) of the object would actually curve upward by 9% over the journey (because the stars traverse 9% - of the distance across the frame - downward over that period) – while travelling away from us at some indeterminate angle.

Now if we suppose Earth to be beyond the upper right corner of frame, we can still maintain the satellite hypothesis because we can simply contend the satellite is in orbit around earth and thus curving off into the distance in relation to earth, while the rotation of the shuttle only makes it appear to be on a straight line trajectory.

So far so good. But we must also account for the downward and leftward components of the shuttle’s motion. This actually would not have very much affect on the hypothesised true motion of the object. The downward component would tend to make the true motion curve a little more upward, and the leftward motion make the true motion curve a little more rightward – flattening out the “right/left” component of the true orbital arc (and the whole thing making the true velocity less than would otherwise be calculated). Nevertheless we can maintain the satellite hypothesis.

Now however, we come to what happens after point b in the diagram (at 7:04 in the video). The observed trajectory deviates some 30 odd degrees downward - from its original observed trajectory to then run almost parallel with the bottom of frame.

If we imagine the earth in the upper right and the object is a satellite orbiting earth heading away from us, what could possibly cause the observed deviation? At point b (7:04 – the point of deviation) the stars continue their inexorable drift downward, unchanged in motion, thus the shuttle’s rotation (referencing the stars) and component motion (referencing MIR) does not alter, so the movement of the shuttle could not be the cause of the deviation.

It is also hard to imagine that at point b the whole shuttle/MIR “system” suddenly took a lurch to the “right” (in toto in unison)! So what are we left with? It can only mean the object itself has changed its trajectory!

How do we explain that? And how do we explain the subsequent trajectory changes (at points c and d) and how do we explain the apparent halting of all relative motion – then the continuing on to disappear (apparently) into the distance (as it diminishes in size and brightness during the latter periods of its motion)?

I asked in my previous post if you could use your knowledge of applied mathematics to explain the latter trajectories. You responded that one needed to account for the relative motions of the shuttle, stars and MIR in order to do this. Critically however you did not actually do that yourself. Instead asking me to do it. I have done so conceptually above, can you now explain the trajectory changes in light of this?

Does your satellite hypothesis withstand such an analysis? If not, what other mundane object could be the cause? As it stands, the object is unexplained. A UFO in other words. A UFO that, on current analysis, defies mundane explanation.

 

[wollery]

As you say, we can adjust the hypothetical true motion of the object using the stars and MIR as reference points. However, taking into account the whole of the observed trajectory of the object, such an exercise makes the satellite hypothesis even more problematic.

For example (observing the 3D diagram in my previous reply to you), between points a and b (6:18 to 7:03 on the video), and noting the relative movement of the three most prominent stars in the left of frame (probably Orion’s “belt”) we can notice that they drift pretty much straight down by about 9% of the distance of the frame (over the period 6:18 to 7:03). This means of course that our POV has rotated upward by 9% over that period.

However, MIR itself is heading diagonally upward and to the right – countering, and even overcoming, that rotation. Considering the upward component motion of MIR first, this must mean that the shuttle is heading downward (in relation to MIR), faster than it is rotating upward (in relation to the stars). That this conceptualisation is true is also shown by observing the upper tips of MIR’s solar panels; that is, the foremost tip moves upward toward the hindmost tip.

But MIR is also moving to the right. Now this movement cannot be explained by a rotation of the shuttle (because if rotation were the explanation, Orion’s belt would also shift proportionally in the opposite direction – to the right – and this would take them away from the edge of frame by the same amount as the purported rotation - and we do not note this, so the shuttle must also be moving to the leftward in relation to MIR. This can also be supported by the fact that the solar panels are observed to separate from each other, the foremost moving further to the right than the hindmost.

So, putting it all together, the shuttle is generally rotating our POV upward (a continuous rotation as indicated by the steady, uninterrupted movement of the stars in Orion downward) while also moving diagonally down and to the left in relation to MIR (this latter movement is not continuous. As can be seen over the whole video, adjustments in this motion are apparent as MIR subsequently shifts back again in the opposite direction - and over the whole video, can be seen to generally “bobble” back and forth, as shuttle trajectory changes are initiated in order to transcribe an orbit around MIR – as the voiceover informs us that is what the shuttle is doing).

So, where does all that leave us in relation to the object itself?

First, if we adjust for the drift of the stars - and given the observed straight line trajectory - and given a constant velocity - that would mean the true motion (true trajectory) of the object would actually curve upward by 9% over the journey (because the stars traverse 9% - of the distance across the frame - downward over that period) – while travelling away from us at some indeterminate angle.

Now if we suppose Earth to be beyond the upper right corner of frame, we can still maintain the satellite hypothesis because we can simply contend the satellite is in orbit around earth and thus curving off into the distance in relation to earth, while the rotation of the shuttle only makes it appear to be on a straight line trajectory.

So far so good. But we must also account for the downward and leftward components of the shuttle’s motion. This actually would not have very much affect on the hypothesised true motion of the object. The downward component would tend to make the true motion curve a little more upward, and the leftward motion make the true motion curve a little more rightward – flattening out the “right/left” component of the true orbital arc (and the whole thing making the true velocity less than would otherwise be calculated). Nevertheless we can maintain the satellite hypothesis.

Now however, we come to what happens after point b in the diagram (at 7:04 in the video). The observed trajectory deviates some 30 odd degrees downward - from its original observed trajectory to then run almost parallel with the bottom of frame.

If we imagine the earth in the upper right and the object is a satellite orbiting earth heading away from us, what could possibly cause the observed deviation? At point b (7:04 – the point of deviation) the stars continue their inexorable drift downward, unchanged in motion, thus the shuttle’s rotation (referencing the stars) and component motion (referencing MIR) does not alter, so the movement of the shuttle could not be the cause of the deviation.

It is also hard to imagine that at point b the whole shuttle/MIR “system” suddenly took a lurch to the “right” (in toto in unison)! So what are we left with? It can only mean the object itself has changed its trajectory!

How do we explain that? And how do we explain the subsequent trajectory changes (at points c and d) and how do we explain the apparent halting of all relative motion – then the continuing on to disappear (apparently) into the distance (as it diminishes in size and brightness during the latter periods of its motion)?

I asked in my previous post if you could use your knowledge of applied mathematics to explain the latter trajectories. You responded that one needed to account for the relative motions of the shuttle, stars and MIR in order to do this. Critically however you did not actually do that yourself. Instead asking me to do it. I have done so conceptually above, can you now explain the trajectory changes in light of this?

Does your satellite hypothesis withstand such an analysis? If not, what other mundane object could be the cause? As it stands, the object is unexplained. A UFO in other words. A UFO that, on current analysis, defies mundane explanation.

So, where you could actually measure the position of the object relative to MIR and relative to the background stars, which are our only two reference points, you choose instead to pontificate on what you think might be the result. I explained that I don't really have the time to do it properly. I also have difficulty accessing the video, because youtube is censored by the Chinese authorities (although there are ways around that). Finally, you introduced this footage, and you say that you want to know what it is.

Don't make suppositions about what the measurements might show if you were to take them. Just take the bloody measurements.

 

[Rramjet]

So, where you could actually measure the position of the object relative to MIR and relative to the background stars, which are our only two reference points, you choose instead to pontificate on what you think might be the result. I explained that I don't really have the time to do it properly. I also have difficulty accessing the video, because youtube is censored by the Chinese authorities (although there are ways around that). Finally, you introduced this footage, and you say that you want to know what it is.

Don't make suppositions about what the measurements might show if you were to take them. Just take the bloody measurements.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

My point was that we can gain a conceptual grasp of the relative positions and movements in space of the shuttle (our POV) in relation to MIR and the stars by noting the relative movements of each. Once we have that conceptual grasp, we can then note what that means to the object’s trajectory.

The relative positions and movements of all the elements can then be shown to be consistent with your satellite hypothesis over the first part of the object’s trajectory. Well and good. But we cannot simply leave it there. We must account for the whole of the object’s trajectory …and that is where your satellite hypothesis runs into major difficulties.

In my previous post I merely noted that the satellite hypothesis is difficult (!) to reconcile with the observed trajectory changes.

If I claimed that the object was an alien craft, you would demand I show the workings and evidence that demonstrates that claim to be true. I make no such claim however. I have merely noted that the trajectory of the object is difficult to reconcile with any mundane object.

It was you who put forward the satellite hypothesis. Co-operatively (I thought), we have shown that hypothesis actually does stand up over the first part of the object’s trajectory. Generously (because I don’t have the burden of proof for your satellite hypothesis), I tried to fit the rest of the object’s trajectory into your satellite hypothesis. I could not see a way of doing that. You cannot then legitimately chastise me for not being able to come up with a proof for your hypothesis: The burden of proof for that hypothesis resides with you.

If you believe you can reconcile the trajectory changes with your hypothesis, then please show us how that can be done. I claim that it cannot be done and I have posted my reasons for coming to that conclusion. I am willing to entertain your hypothesis further if you can show me how I might plausibly do so.

PS: Do your statements mean that somehow the “Chinese authorities” have blocked your access to the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related)? But if you cannot even view the video… or what are you claiming with your statements in this regard? I am genuinely puzzled as to why you would say such a thing…

 

[RoboTimbo]

If I claimed that the object was an alien craft, you would demand I show the workings and evidence that demonstrates that claim to be true. I make no such claim however. I have merely noted that the trajectory of the object is difficult to reconcile with any mundane object.

You've been called on this before. Let me remind you about your attempts to switch the burden of proof:

Why do you automatically leap to the extreme? I am not claiming “impossible” or “can’t be”, just that on current evidence the trajectories seem to defy mundane explanation. Can you add anything of substance to that discussion?

I think you've added the weasel words "seem to" to enable you to try to shift the burden of proof. How far away is the object? What size is it? What is its speed?

You changed the weasel words to "difficult to reconcile with any mundane object" in your attempt to switch the burden of proof to Wollery.

You still have the burden of proof to show it is alien. You haven't given sufficient evidence that it is yet.

 

[wollery]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for moderated thread.

My point was that we can gain a conceptual grasp of the relative positions and movements in space of the shuttle (our POV) in relation to MIR and the stars by noting the relative movements of each. Once we have that conceptual grasp, we can then note what that means to the object’s trajectory.

A conceptual grasp is all well and good, but is no replacement for actual measurements, which are relatively easy to take.

The relative positions and movements of all the elements can then be shown to be consistent with your satellite hypothesis over the first part of the object’s trajectory. Well and good. But we cannot simply leave it there. We must account for the whole of the object’s trajectory …and that is where your satellite hypothesis runs into major difficulties.

Indeed, we must account for the whole trajectory. I explained how that could be done, and also some of the reasons why it is difficult for me to do it in the current circumstances.

In my previous post I merely noted that the satellite hypothesis is difficult (!) to reconcile with the observed trajectory changes.

If I claimed that the object was an alien craft, you would demand I show the workings and evidence that demonstrates that claim to be true. I make no such claim however. I have merely noted that the trajectory of the object is difficult to reconcile with any mundane object.

As you always do. And those objections melt away when others show that you're wrong. Unfortunately that happens quite often.

It was you who put forward the satellite hypothesis. Co-operatively (I thought), we have shown that hypothesis actually does stand up over the first part of the object’s trajectory. Generously (because I don’t have the burden of proof for your satellite hypothesis), I tried to fit the rest of the object’s trajectory into your satellite hypothesis. I could not see a way of doing that. You cannot then legitimately chastise me for not being able to come up with a proof for your hypothesis: The burden of proof for that hypothesis resides with you.

If you believe you can reconcile the trajectory changes with your hypothesis, then please show us how that can be done. I claim that it cannot be done and I have posted my reasons for coming to that conclusion. I am willing to entertain your hypothesis further if you can show me how I might plausibly do so.

I have explained what measurements you need to take. If you are really interested in getting to the facts then I would think that you'd be willing to take those measurement.

PS: Do your statements mean that somehow the “Chinese authorities” have blocked your access to the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related)? But if you cannot even view the video… or what are you claiming with your statements in this regard? I am genuinely puzzled as to why you would say such a thing…

I live in China, and the Government blocks some websites with a firewall. One of those websites is youtube. There are ways of getting around the firewall, but this requires certain types of software. The Chinese government continually update their firewall programs in order to make this software obsolete, so you have to keep finding newer and better versions. The other week I had a working version and was able to access youtube and watch the video, but the Chinese firewall caught up with that software, and I haven't been able to get a working one since then. I may get another one in the future, but until then I can't access youtube.

I may actually have time later in the week, so if you were willing to send me the screen grabs that you downloaded I might be able to do the measurements. I'm sending you a pm with my email address.

 

[Jocce]

It was you who put forward the satellite hypothesis. Co-operatively (I thought), we have shown that hypothesis actually does stand up over the first part of the object’s trajectory. Generously (because I don’t have the burden of proof for your satellite hypothesis)

It has been pointed out to you before that rather than post youtube clips and ask the forum to explain them, it would be better if you would go through the trouble of making these kinds of measurements yourself before posting.

You made the original claim that the trajectory is anomalous. It's only fair that you then provide a plot over it where such things as discussed here are taken into account. Rather than doing that, you insist that someone else does it for you whenever a possible explanation is suggested. You have the burden of proof.

 

[Rramjet]

You've been called on this before. Let me remind you about your attempts to switch the burden of proof:

You changed the weasel words to "difficult to reconcile with any mundane object" in your attempt to switch the burden of proof to Wollery.

You still have the burden of proof to show it is alien. You haven't given sufficient evidence that it is yet.

Clearly, you have yet to grasp the concept of Burden of Proof.

It is quite simple:

I make a claim, I have the burden of proof.
You make a claim, you have the burden of proof.

In this instance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related):

I claim the object’s trajectory (beginning bottom right from 6:17) is difficult to reconcile with any mundane object and I have provided extensive reasoning over a number of posts as to why I have come to that conclusion.

If you object to my reasoning in those posts or can otherwise find fault with that reasoning, then please indicate where you do so and provide your own reasons why you come to that conclusion.

That would advance the debate.

Now Wollery has (counter) claimed that the object’s trajectory can be reconciled with a mundane object – specifically; a satellite.

Since he has made that claim, then it is up to him to show the veracity of that claim. In other words RoboT, Wollery has the Burden of Proof to show evidence in support of his claim.

However, Wollery then claims he has no/limited access to the video and even if he did, no time to actually evidence his claim. That is unfortunate, but not my problem

Nevertheless, in the spirit of cooperation I am willing to help him as far as I can within the limited time that I have available to me (but I can provide no guarantees in that respect). That does not mean that I have a responsibility to do so – his claim, his responsibility – just that I am willing to advance the debate as far as possible with the resources available to me.

So, RoboT, now that the contending claims have been clearly delineated above, do you have anything of actual substance you wish to add to the debate?

I may actually have time later in the week, so if you were willing to send me the screen grabs that you downloaded I might be able to do the measurements. I'm sending you a pm with my email address.

Done.

It has been pointed out to you before that rather than post youtube clips and ask the forum to explain them, it would be better if you would go through the trouble of making these kinds of measurements yourself before posting.

You made the original claim that the trajectory is anomalous. It's only fair that you then provide a plot over it where such things as discussed here are taken into account. Rather than doing that, you insist that someone else does it for you whenever a possible explanation is suggested. You have the burden of proof.

What kinds of measurements?

I have plotted the object’s trajectory (post # 7727, p. 194).. That’s a measurement surely.

One can clearly see the background stars moving downward – indicating our POV is rotating upward. Do you dispute that contention? (I have also measured the rate of that drift).

One can clearly see MIR moving upward and to the right and we can clearly see the body and the tips of the solar panels coming together, indicating that our POV is shifting downward and to the left in relation to MIR (not surprising, given the video voiceover indicates we are orbiting MIR). Do you dispute that?

That combined motion means that the true motion of the object must be curving away from us. This can still be seen as consistent with Wollery’s satellite hypothesis. Do you dispute that?

But then we get to the first trajectory change ...and the second …and the third and complete halt in motion …then the resumption of motion …all that time the star’s, and MIR’s, relative motions remain unchanged. This means that it was not the shuttle’s motion that caused an apparent trajectory change (assuming true motion does not change). That is, the trajectory changes must be in the true motion of the object. Do you dispute that?

So how does a satellite do that? Clearly a satellite cannot. Do you dispute that contention?

Then if not a satellite, what? I have already shown that it is difficult to imagine that it was a piece of debri under the influence of the shuttle’s thrusters. Do you dispute that?

A comet? A meteor? Too slow …and those trajectory changes…

I cannot think of any mundane object. Perhaps you can?

I have provided a plot of the trajectory (post # 7727, p. 194). I have provided explanations as to why I don’t believe the trajectory can be reconciled with a mundane object. If you dispute those explanations then please do so. If you believe further “measurement” is needed, then do that as well. If someone proposes an alternate explanation (satellite for example) then they have the burden of proof to show that explanation to be plausible. I have made my case. I stand by that case (but reserve the right to change my conclusions if new evidence is brought to light).

 

[RoboTimbo]

Clearly, you have yet to grasp the concept of Burden of Proof.

It is quite simple:

I make a claim, I have the burden of proof.
You make a claim, you have the burden of proof.

Clearly, you would like to believe I don't grasp the burden of proof concept but equally clearly you realize that I do, much to your chagrin.

In this instance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related):

I claim the object’s trajectory (beginning bottom right from 6:17) is difficult to reconcile with any mundane object and I have provided extensive reasoning over a number of posts as to why I have come to that conclusion.

Then if your claim is that the object cannot be a mundane object, you will need to show how it is impossible for it to be any mundane object. Naming the Rramjet Seven mundane objects will not be enough.

If you object to my reasoning in those posts or can otherwise find fault with that reasoning, then please indicate where you do so and provide your own reasons why you come to that conclusion.

No, you won't be allowed to switch the burden of proof that way.

That would advance the debate.

Now Wollery has (counter) claimed that the object’s trajectory can be reconciled with a mundane object – specifically; a satellite.

Since he has made that claim, then it is up to him to show the veracity of that claim. In other words RoboT, Wollery has the Burden of Proof to show evidence in support of his claim.

Nope, you never shifted the burden of proof. You never showed it to be definitively alien. It is a kindness of Wollery to propose alternative mundane explanations and give cursory evidence to support those suppositions. Remember your handwaving at Rogue River?

However, Wollery then claims he has no/limited access to the video and even if he did, no time to actually evidence his claim. That is unfortunate, but not my problem

Correct, your problem is that you still have the burden of proof.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of cooperation I am willing to help him as far as I can within the limited time that I have available to me (but I can provide no guarantees in that respect). That does not mean that I have a responsibility to do so – his claim, his responsibility – just that I am willing to advance the debate as far as possible with the resources available to me.

Great. You may advance the debate by explaining what your theory is and how it would be falsifiable. I'm sure you don't want "aliens" to be simply a default "god of the gaps" type of hypothesis. That would also be more germaine to your OP of YOU proving aliens exist than shifting the burden of proof and having us prove mundane objects exist.

So, RoboT, now that the contending claims have been clearly delineated above, do you have anything of actual substance you wish to add to the debate?

Well, I guess you aren't going to provide a falsifiable theory so your aliens will continue to be your god of the gaps default when you can't think of an explanation for something.

 

[Rramjet]

Clearly, you would like to believe I don't grasp the burden of proof concept but equally clearly you realize that I do, much to your chagrin.

My “chagrin” (as you term it) is based on the fact that you claim to understand the burden of proof, yet have provided no evidence that you actually do. Quite the opposite in fact. All the evidence so far indicates you have no understanding of the concept at all. For example you contend that when Wollery puts forward his satellite hypothesis, it is up to me to prove or disprove his hypothesis. However it is his claim and his burden of proof.

Then if your claim is that the object cannot be a mundane object, you will need to show how it is impossible for it to be any mundane object. Naming the Rramjet Seven mundane objects will not be enough.

My statement of claim contained the words:

“…is difficult to reconcile with any mundane object …" .

That is not the same as stating it is “impossible” for it to be a mundane object. It still might be a mundane object. Indeed we are currently working through the hypothesis that it might be a satellite. Do you have anything of actual substance to add to that debate?

No, you won't be allowed to switch the burden of proof that way.

You keep repeating this claim, but unless you can provide evidence of the veracity of that claim then we are entitled to dismiss it as entirely unfounded. I have asked you on numerous occasions to explain why you think your claim here has substance - you have yet to do so.

I stated:
“Now Wollery has (counter) claimed that the object’s trajectory can be reconciled with a mundane object – specifically; a satellite.

Since he has made that claim, then it is up to him to show the veracity of that claim. In other words RoboT, Wollery has the Burden of Proof to show evidence in support of his claim.”

Nope, you never shifted the burden of proof.

You will have to clarify that. First you claim that I am somehow shifting the burden of proof …now you claim the opposite?

You never showed it to be definitively alien.

I have never contended that it was alien. In fact I have explained to you on numerous occasions why I believe the ETH cannot (or should not) be supported despite what appears to be overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

It is a kindness of Wollery to propose alternative mundane explanations and give cursory evidence to support those suppositions.

Indeed I thank Wollery for rationally engaging in the debate and I have expressed my appreciation for that in both public and private communications.

Remember your handwaving at Rogue River?

Merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

Correct, your problem is that you still have the burden of proof.

I made a claim. I provided reasons why I believe that claim to be true. If you object to my reasoning in support of that claim or can find fault with it in any way then please do so providing your own reasoning as to why you come to such conclusions. I asked if you would do this in my previous reply to you. Does your failure in this regard indicate that you cannot, or you will not?

Great. You may advance the debate by explaining what your theory is and how it would be falsifiable.

My claim is falsifiable by describing a mundane object whose characteristics could be reconciled with the trajectory we see in the video.

My theory is that UFOs represent a number of different phenomena (including, but not necessarily so, ET) and that in order to understand what those phenomena are (or what they represent) we must undertake a concerted, sufficiently funded, peer reviewed research process. However, in order to successfully undertake such research we must first sort the wheat from the chaff so to speak – that is; in order to advance such research we must first determine for study those cases which represent genuine UFOs and separate them from those which may be explicable in mundane terms. To that end I have been presenting - and inviting comment on - cases in this thread that I believe represent genuine UFOs.

I'm sure you don't want "aliens" to be simply a default "god of the gaps" type of hypothesis.

Not at all. So far there seems to be some considerable degree of circumstantial evidence in support of the ETH, but as I have stated on numerous occasions, I am not willing to conclude on the veracity of that explanation (one way or other) at this point.

That would also be more germaine to your OP of YOU proving aliens exist than shifting the burden of proof and having us prove mundane objects exist.

You misconstrue the purpose of this thread. I stated I would present evidence for both UFOs (meaning genuine UFOs and not those which, following investigation, can plausibly be described in mundane terms) and “aliens” (simply meaning something foreign to our current concepts of what does constitute the mundane – and of course considering that in many cases there seems to be intelligent control and the presence of “beings” – though of course looks can be deceiving).

Moreover, we all know mundane objects exist …or do we..? Rather, for the purposes of this debate we take it for granted that mundane objects exist and we are then simply attempting to fit plausible mundane explanations to objects and events that seem to defy mundane explanation. For those cases where we cannot successfully do so, we then place those cases into the category of deserving of further research - according to the theory I outlined above.

Well, I guess you aren't going to provide a falsifiable theory so your aliens will continue to be your god of the gaps default when you can't think of an explanation for something.

Not at all. First you are simply confusing hypotheses with theories. For example, one cannot directly falsify the theory of evolution. One must approach the task of doing so by tackling the numerous underlying assumptions (the many underlying hypotheses) that go into the building of the theory.

Second, for those UFO cases where no plausible mundane explanation is apparent, I draw no conclusions concerning what those cases might actually represent, I simply note that they are currently inexplicable in mundane terms and refer them for further research.

Of course I may legitimately hypothesise about those cases and may then use those hypotheses to guide that further research, but that is an entirely different prospect to concluding about those cases based on the mere fact that they are currently inexplicable in mundane terms. I am simply collating a group of cases where no plausible mundane explanation can be found and then contending that it is those cases that should then considered for further research.

According to your own belief systems you may help in that sorting and collating process, or you may hinder it. That is your right. However, I simply ask that when you do make a claim (or counterclaim) that you actually provide evidence in support of that claim (or at the very least an explanation as to why you believe your claim to be substantive).

 

[Jocce]

What kinds of measurements?

I have plotted the object’s trajectory (post # 7727, p. 194).. That’s a measurement surely.

Obviously, I was talking about what Wollery suggested:

What I would do is measure the movement of MIR within the frame and adjust the apparent position of the object relatively, for instance, if MIR moves up the frame 0.1cm then you need to adjust the measured position of the object down the frame 0.1cm. Remember, the camera is focused on MIR, so that's the image's zero point, not the bottom left corner of the frame. Pick at least three easily discernible points on MIR and take an average, in order to allow for the fact that the aspect ratio of MIR may be changing. Use the same points on MIR for every measurement.

Every measurement of the object should give its position relative to MIR, not to the corner of the frame.

Rramjet, why don't you want to do this that would result in a more accurate plot over the trajectory?

I have provided a plot of the trajectory (post # 7727, p. 194). I have provided explanations as to why I don’t believe the trajectory can be reconciled with a mundane object. If you dispute those explanations then please do so. If you believe further “measurement” is needed, then do that as well. If someone proposes an alternate explanation (satellite for example) then they have the burden of proof to show that explanation to be plausible. I have made my case. I stand by that case (but reserve the right to change my conclusions if new evidence is brought to light).

New evidence? It seems like you don't even want to use whatever data is available to the fullest. You say the trajectory is anomalous, you make the measurements and plot it allowing for drift etc.

 

[Stray Cat]

I live in China, and the Government blocks some websites with a firewall. One of those websites is youtube. There are ways of getting around the firewall, but this requires certain types of software. The Chinese government continually update their firewall programs in order to make this software obsolete, so you have to keep finding newer and better versions. The other week I had a working version and was able to access youtube and watch the video, but the Chinese firewall caught up with that software, and I haven't been able to get a working one since then. I may get another one in the future, but until then I can't access youtube.

You know you can quite easily download YouTube videos to your hard drive so you can have a copy locally?
I'm on Mac here so it may be slightly different for PC users, but this information is useful for anyone who wants to examine YouTube videos.
Get the Firefox browser, open it and go to YouTube video you wish to save.
In the top menu under the tab 'Tools' there is an option 'Page Info' (also command + I will do).
This opens a window with all the elements on that page listed separately.
Click the 'Media' tab. There will be one file in the list that you can see is still loading (it's file size is increasing).
Double click it and it will download to your hard drive.
When the download is complete, get file info on the file (click once on the file to highlight it and press command + I) and change it's file extension to .flv.
You should then be able to open it up in any video viewing software.

Hope this helps.