I have said many times in this thread that I think it unlikely that aliens comes from space or have “spacecraft” (at least in the usual sense). they might originate from an “alien” civilization that comes from Earth or from a parallel worldline Earth which can access this worldline. the ET explanation has stuck because during the late 1940s that seemed the obvious explanation.
Not in the sky. A shiny round aircraft as seen from above should only reflect the sky, which at that altitude would be clear blue. This photo was taken on a clear day with no clouds, so there should be nothing for the shiny surface to reflect except sky.
One likely candidate for this hoax is a chrome-plated hubcap, perhaps from a VW.
There was enough flat space in the vicinity of the photograph for a hoaxer to throw a hubcap - indeed, McRoberts may not have been aware of the hoax - she may have been too engrossed in taking the photo to notice someone else tossing a hubcap across her field of view. Many UFO pictures have been taken where the photographer did not see the phenomenon - you are not always aware of rapid movement within the frame.
So she would have no incentive to make a false claim.
No. You pick the one you think is best and link to it.
This approach you keep insisting we take is equivalent to dumping a load of hay in front of us, guaranteeing that there is a needle in the middle of all that hay, but demanding that we find your needle for you.
Show us the needle.
you
I can’t even tell if you mean that as a joke. I suspect you don’t.
with that said, again, and I say this as a non-expert, I don’t see any blur motion, do you? and why not take more photos and make it bigger, if faked?
this thread reminds me of talking with literal-minded Christians, as I may have said earlier. they will accept any possibility except the one that the Bible lied. I once encountered somebody online who believed in the Bible but not the supernatural and came up with convoluted scientific explanations as to how the miracles could have happened without recluse to the paranormal.
so it seems you guys can accept any possibility except the paranormal nature of (some)UFOs. the problem does not have to do with the quality of the evidence but with a filtering process where you will go to any lengths to deny it.
No, the problem is that there has never been a mystery who’s solution was something paranormal. Anything is more likely than a paranormal explaination.
You’re proposing a solution with no evidence.
I have not provided a solution. but I have explained a means by which evidence always proves itself “inadequate”. it has to do with the mind of the evaluator.
now, if any of you saw a (real) UFO, say tonight, or during the day, tomorrow, you’d think differently, because the event would cut through your detail.
that hypothetical event would not convince via rational argument. but then, to my mind, beyond a certain point, denial of UFOs has anything to di with rationality. we have more evidence available to the public than we ever did.
Not that I expect you to understand the implications of the above.
As described in Tim Minchin’s “Storm”
Reality, facts, evidence, probability…yeah, they can be pesky, can’t they?
Got any?
If you’re not familiar with Bob Lazar and his claims of reverse-engineering an alien craft, the new Prime Video documentary S4: The Bob Lazar Story might be of interest.
Absolutely not. This photo was taken at a rest stop;
Here’s an expanded image of the rest stop; plenty of room for other parked cars.
it is entirely possible that a previous vehicle had left a hubcap behind, and some joker chucked it like a Frisbee just as McRoberts too k her picture. At the top of its flight there might be no motion blur.
Much more likely than extradimensional entities or ‘cryptoterrestrials’, who have never left any tangible, testable evidence of their existence.
As I suggested earlier, McRoberts may have been an entirely innocent party in this process. If the joker only threw the hubcap once, there would be no reason to take any more photos.
Have you looked at the quality of the recent tranche of videos released by the Pentagon? Tiny moving blobs in the distance, mostly moving due to the motion of the aircraft taking the video. This parallax illusion makes small slow flying or floating objects like birds or balloons look like they are moving rapidly. In some clips you can see the birds’ wings flapping.
I do hope that this documentary exposed Lazar’s many lies about his education and status as a ‘physicist’; he worked as a technician, and did not go to MIT or Caltech. There is no evidence he ever even got a degree.
Note as well that his statements about Moscovium (the real element 115) were all completely wrong.
Birds 
. They’re clearly visitors from Arrakis.
I, for one, welcome our Fremen overlords.
true, because as soon as the thing has an explanation, it goes from paranormal to normal. of course, a difficult transition period comes in until the scientific consensus accepts it. science adapts. as does public opinion.
(bolding added by me.)
Ufologists know about the throw a hubcap into the air trick. not a possibility they wouldn’t have considered.
the rest presupposes some unlikely circumstances. like the photographer coming alone at the right moment, not noticing a hoaxer throwing a hubcap into the air.
I can accept scratch on emulsion as possible (provided they didn’t check for that, which I suspect they would have) but, I don’t buy that all.
not an expert so I wouldn’t know. the Pentagon themselves seems to find it convincing so, I mean… I think I trust them more than I do I would random internet poster, no offense intended.
at any rate, not all UFO footage looks like blurry dots. even those blurry dots might appear on radars, etc., showing themselves as anomalous.
as for the NHIs not leaving tangible proof, depends on what you call tangible proof, if you have on one hand a cover-up (possibly) and the other NHIs with Clarketech, that would explain it. though it depends on what you consider proof, as well.
Do they, though? All they are doing is releasing a number of clips where the causes are not clear. There is no indication that ‘the Pentagon’ find these ‘convincing’. All we know is that they don’t have enough information to identify the exact circumstances involved.
is the nature of UFOs/UAPs; no matter how good our sensors get, there will always be phenomena at the edge of resolution, which cannot be reliably resolved.
Even if we had sensors that could see clearly to the edge of the Solar System there would be events occurring beyond that limit that could not be reliably identified. There will always be UFOs, unidentified phenomena, but they just get further and further away as sensors improve. If there were any intelligent entities involved, how could they possibly know how to distance themselves always beyond the edge of the resolution limit? I suggest that this would be literally impossible.
I thought the hubcap in the air thing was so unknown to you that you thought the suggestion was a joke.
There’s not necessarily a hoaxter. Someone can through a hubcap in the air for fun (it’s a frisbee like object) and coincidentally, someone who didn’t even notice the incident was snapping a picture of the scenery. A few weeks later when the pictures are developed, there’s a mysterious object - no hoax, but a honest misinterpretation.
An unlikely coincidence - but one based on real phenomena (people snap pictures, people throw things). And stranger coincidences happen every day.