I’m a bit puzzled—could someone clarify the tic-tac video debate between Marik von Rennenkampff and Mick West? Did Marik demonstrate with a 3D model that the object in the video resembles a tic tac shape?
From what I gathered, Marik created a 3D model of a tic tac, including the protrusions underneath and took into account the angle of sunlight reflecting off it, and noted that it closely matches the shape of the object in the video.
However, during his debate with Mick, Mick argued that the first mode in the video (when the object appears white) is in “TV mode,” which shows its appearance at that moment—and it doesn’t look like a tic tac. The second mode (when it appears black) represents heat. Did I get that right? If so, I’m not sure why the shape matters when the camera is detecting heat in the second mode.
The debate you’re referring to involves nuanced discussions about the nature of the object captured in the Tic Tac video, and it highlights the complexities involved in analyzing unidentified flying objects (UFOs) using technology.
Marik von Rennenkampff’s 3D model aimed to demonstrate that the object in the video could resemble a Tic Tac, especially when considering specific features like the protrusions and how sunlight interacts with its surface. This aspect is important because it attempts to connect visual data with known shapes, helping to conceptualize what the object might be.
On the other hand, Mick West’s argument about the “tv mode” and “heat mode” of the camera is crucial for understanding how the object appears under different conditions. When the object is depicted in “tv mode,” it shows a visual representation based on light (visible spectrum), and Mick suggests that it does not resemble a Tic Tac in this mode. In “heat mode,” the camera detects infrared radiation, which represents heat rather than a direct visual image, potentially altering the perceived shape or features of the object.
Your confusion seems to stem from the implication of these different modes: while Marik is focused on the visual characteristics of the object when it’s white (in visible light), Mick emphasizes that the appearance can drastically change when analyzed in a different spectrum (heat). This means that what you see in one mode may not accurately represent the object’s true shape or characteristics when viewed through another lens.
In summary, the shape Marik is discussing is relevant for the visual mode, while Mick’s arguments highlight the challenges of interpreting those shapes in the context of how the camera categorizes the data. Both perspectives contribute to the larger discussion, but they focus on different aspects of the object’s representation and the technology used to capture it.