Talk:2572: Alien Observers

This is my first explanation, i know it is really bad but i wanted to give it a goElijahRock (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Great you are helping. Often easier to continue and improve existing explanations rather than start as you did from scratch. Even if most of the original version end up getting changed. I make alot of edits but rarely begin the explanation. --Kynde (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

thanks! glad i could be helpful ElijahRock (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to track each human individually, I was under the impression that it was a "before and after" picture. - 172.70.130.153 22:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I think they both track humans individually, and that this is a (representative) before-and-after picture. They probably have minions/computers/whatever continuously updating the actual flight-boundaries as people move around (and go into camera/phone/cameraphone stores and come out with something new) but this is a 'management briefing' that extraordinarily reports this otherwise mundane development as an individual matter, with a visual aid to make the report sink in. Just going to show how aliens can be both so alien and yet amazingly human in their bureaucratic minutiae. 172.70.85.73 01:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is that they don't actually keep track of which phone any random person has (or alter their flight path respectively), it's just a matter of "this is the furthest human technology can go". - 172.70.131.122 00:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I think they do track everyone's individual capabilities. (They're that good at observation!) That's why they're so specific about what two individuals have done to upgrade their media capabilities. On the other hand, I think the on-screen image is just a representative diagram, rather than real-time/real-geography with real UFO positions - but it depicts the effective alterations of approach distances that this person's now 'toy' has enforced upon these Little Green Voyeurs. 172.70.162.155 00:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Feels like this is a partial rebuttal of https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1235:_Settled Boatster (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Didn't see your comment, before, but added this link myself in my own way. 172.70.85.73 01:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that Randall is also referring to the fact that all footage of "UFOs" show them flying erratically. This being due to the fact that this is the way refraction works. Sorry for the bad English, not sure how to explain it :) EDIT: It could also refer to the fact that a lot of people still believe in UFOs even though this is a well-known phenomenon that is known to be the cause of a lot of these sightings. As I said below though most of these kind of sightings are reported by pilots flying at high altitudes, so now I'm not sure...-- The Cat Lady (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

(Ditto above, didn't see this before starting editing, but...) I put it down to zoom-wobble in what I just inserted. Though didn't say that this is just normal (acceptable) hand-wobble augmented by the zoom needed to frame the distant whateveritis. Yes, rapidly changing refraction through moving air is probably also a thing (usually heat haze during the day, or the subtler stuff that astronomical telescopes have to deal with at night with lasers and adaptive optics and/or electronic post-processing) but I'm happy to leave it at zoom-wobble without going back and adding your suggestion. Do edit it if you feel like it, though, that being how this site works. 172.70.85.73 01:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The zoom-wobble is a great explanation! I didn't think of that at all :P However, there's lots of footage that exists from non-zoomed, fixed cameras like security cameras and 8 mm film cameras on tripods, which sort of obviates that explanation. But also, I did a quick search for footage like that and it looks nothing like refraction phenoma (at least the examples I could find) so my explanation isn't quite correct either. I think those kind of sightings are mostly reported by pilots at high altitudes, as those are more likely conditions for this to happen. I'm still leaning more towards my explanation than yours for now though:) I'm going to leave this here for now and wait for more discussion before I change anything -- The Cat Lady (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Zoom is a misnomer for the lens setups modern phones come with. As an example, the Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra does not have any zoom - it has three distinct cameras, each with their own prime lens. You can switch between the cameras, but this is not zooming. Paul-Simon (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have added that "Human 38XT11" is a reference to THX 1138... anyone who can spot something similar with Human 910-25J-1Q38 or B-C54? --Kynde (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

1Q84 is the title of a novel by Haruki Murakami. The meaning of the title is the year 1984, since 9 in Japanese is kyū. So perhaps 1Q38 is code for 1938? Entropy (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Can't they just be random numbers that Randall decided to use? Why does everything need to be a reference to something? 172.70.206.205 18:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

people like to see patterns even if there are noneNew editor (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If Randall had chosen them randomly, they'd both have ended up as "4444-4444-4444-4444"... ;) 162.158.159.125 20:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't get why starting a YouTube-channel should have any impact on flying patterns because it's the filming and not the publishing that is the problem. The videos shown on that particular channel can be years old so the erratic flight behavior should take place as soon as a human has the capability to shoot a video rather than publish it. Kimmerin (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)