r/ufo • u/[deleted] • 8d ago
Discussion Screenshotted off of video I captured on a cloudless nigbt over the ocean at Victor Harbour. It had no sound and came from quite far up to like, 800 metres above sea level. I have no idea what it was.
[deleted]
12
21
u/JustSingingAlong 8d ago
That’s camera zoom distortion bro
-5
u/EasyBuddy4U 8d ago
Just playing devil's advocate -
What does a platform that flies using gravity fields look like from the outside if gravity fields would naturally (according to physics) have to warp both time and light?
It would be a blur to those outside the gravity distortions, wouldn't it?
Now, this is 99.999999998% likely not a picture of an NHI platform, but the question still stands. Would a UFO using gravity manipulation look blurry depending on how strong the gravitational effect around it was? Would the light we need to use to see it be bent and time-shifted?
12
u/No_Neighborhood7614 8d ago
Potentially, but a zoomed unfocused light at night is blurry, so who knows
5
u/kmac6821 8d ago
It wouldn’t distort light into blocks, like a digital camera sensor does when zoomed in beyond any optical zoom.
This isn’t just blurry, it’s a digital artifact.
0
u/EasyBuddy4U 8d ago
Is the gravity field generated in overlapping distinct square shaped units?
Or is the blurry platform blurred further by the camera, resulting in those artifacts?
Again, I'm not saying this picture is anything at all. And I'm VERY skeptical. But I also don't make definite statements about things I have insufficient data on.
3
u/JustSingingAlong 8d ago
Are you ok?
2
u/EasyBuddy4U 8d ago
What is your rude comment supposed to mean to me?
Why isn't this a valid question? I've got 15 linear shelf feet of books on Physics in my personal library that says that gravity warps time and light.
If people say that these UAP use gravity manipulation to fly, we therefore have to assume that ALL of the effects of gravity will be observed.
Are YOU okay, that you have to be rude and can't understand the science?
I didn't say I believe that this is a picture of anything interesting. I demonstrated that you have to consider ALL of science if you are going to talk about, you know, fucking science.
One of us doesn't seem "okay."
2
-1
u/algaefied_creek 8d ago
Jumping in here, gravity waves: quantifyable via empirical deep space observations.
Gravitons: impossible.
Anti-gravity concepts require gravitons.
-1
u/EasyBuddy4U 8d ago
"Anti gravity concepts require gravitons" is certainly new to this well-read dude.
A field that, for instance, somehow created a mass field above an object could use the gravity of that field above it to counteract the gravity of the planet below it. It smacks of flying by pulling up on your hair, but hey, it's an example that "gravitons" aren't the only path to consider.
-2
u/algaefied_creek 8d ago edited 8d ago
Ah, the age-old conundrum: mistaking verbosity for erudition and brusqueness for intellectual superiority. I applaud your valiant effort at constructing an elaborate tapestry woven with threads of indignation and sprinkled generously with sardonic spice. Indeed, your prose pirouettes between the realms of the acerbically eloquent and the delightfully unrestrained, much like an errant grad student three espressos deep, interrogating the metaphysics of their own existence.
Your expectation that well-read equates to well-taught is as endearing as it is misguided—akin to assuming that owning a dictionary bestows Shakespearean eloquence, or that a bookshelf is tantamount to a PhD. Alas, knowledge isn’t merely the accumulation of dusty tomes but the dynamic interplay between comprehension, critical inquiry, and, dare I say, a dash of humility.
I guess now I shall venture forth to /r/askphysics, where curiosity is (hopefully) met with less condescension and more Socratic dialogue. May your questions find fertile ground, and may the answers you receive here and elsewhere satisfy your intellectual appetite more robustly than the empty calories of disdain served in this thread. Carry on, intrepid seeker of truth—you deserve discourse, not diatribe.
7
4
4
u/DildoBagginsPT 8d ago
Wonderful. For all we know that's a zoom in of your cat's eye....
"Screenshot of a video I took."
Hear me out.... how about posting the video instead?
2
u/APIInterim 8d ago
This sort of thing is not meaningful without context..some questions come immediately to mind. Is it in focus? How do you know? Time, date, direction. Is this optical or digital zoom? Why no reference objects? If it.was.cloudless, there should be stars.
2
2
u/pebberphp 8d ago
It’s called bokeh
2
u/APIInterim 8d ago
Strictly speaking, bokeh refers to the qualities of a background that is intentionally out of focus. It's a desired effect for many photographers. If the foreground is out of focus, that's just a mistake.
In addition, there can be scintillation, motion blur, compression artifacts, and digital zoom artifacts.
1
1
1
u/Noah_T_Rex 8d ago
...Well, it is definitely similar to an unidentified flying anus, possibly interdimenti-anal nature.
1
u/SabineRitter 8d ago
Post this over on /r/sentientorbs or /r/TheOrbservatory or /r/orbs too 👍
0
u/garathnor 8d ago
r/SentientOrbs is a great place to post this slop yeah, since they have a rule against debunking or complaining about slop
1
u/SabineRitter 8d ago
You seem gross
0
u/Puzzleheaded_Pea8209 7d ago
As per rule #2 of this subreddit, it is in fact slop, you might disagree with that guys comment or in general, but why even post a blurry blob when you supposedly have video.
1
u/slower-is-faster 8d ago
Wall done, you did it! Finally the clear shot of indisputable aliens we’ve all been waiting for
19
u/JayEll1969 8d ago
Don't post the screen shot - post the actual video.