@flarkey , do you know the field of view of the camera, i.e. how many degrees wide and high it is?
Yeah they seem to be using some sort of manual zoom so it's probably going to be difficult to determine how far zoomed in they were at the time.@Easy Muffin - I think we need to confirm which Sensor is being used. There are plenty of technical details online...
LMGTFY.
To complicate the matter, the bar at the bottom left (barely visible) seems to show a variable the level of zoom from W(ide) to N(arrow).
Put these coords in GE and measured the distance from the reticule to the right edge based on the small road down there. I got something like 85 metres
It's redacted.Full high Res version of the video available here, but I'm not sure if this version includes the GPS data or is also redacted.
https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/alleged-dhs-rubber-duck-uap-footage-november-23-2019/
Absolutely agree thatit was done to deter investigation. I think this was a condition of John Greenwald (Mr Black-Vault) being allowed to release it, so don't blame him.From the Black Vault, redacted again and in a slightly different way, seems like an attempt to prevent investigation.
You are right I just read that so removed my post, it was redacted by TBV at the request of the original owner.Absolutely agree thatit was done to deter investigation. I think this was a condition of John Greenwald (Mr Black-Vault) being allowed to release it, so don't blame him.
It's very hard to tell exactly what the object is, because the quality of the imagery is low. It's not too hard, with the metadata presented, to show that the object isn't doing anything unusual. This is because the numbers on the screen are explicit, accurate and exact, unlike the imagery.Dave Falch provides some good comments and demonstrations with his own FLIR pod on why he thinks that the recordings are unlikely to show latex, mylar balloons or a drone. Though, admittingly I am not 100% convinced that a drone can be dismissed.
Full high Res version of the video available here, but I'm not sure if this version includes the GPS data or is also redacted.
https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/alleged-dhs-rubber-duck-uap-footage-november-23-2019/
The Black Vault through a private arrangement, received what was said to be the original files sent over from the anonymous source. There were two files total. Per request, The Black Vault was asked to redact identifying location information / GPS coordinates, along with adding an identifying image to the video. This was done, per that agreement, and the best copy was exported, keeping the original 1920x1080p 30fps quality and exporting at the absolute top bit rate available.
I pointed out the coordinates and position data of both the aircraft and the target on the screens to ny_uap, the guy who initially released the data on Instagram and YouTube. He doesn't want to acknowledge that the model clearly shows the object is high above the group. He's clinging on to the idea that the target data means the object and not the ground behind hit. He blocked me
Dave Falch claims to be an expert on FLIR cameras but he seems to be biased towards the 'no explanation, therefore must be a space ship' camp, just like Letho and ny_uap. If he's an expert then why doesn't he model the coordinates of the aircraft and target and work out the position and velocity of the object, as Mick West has done. He seems to just be saying that the object is an irregular shape therfore it's not a balloon or drone and therefore has no explanation for what it is. A simple high school level calculation will show its an object floating on the wind and therefore likely a balloon or deflated lantern, or some such item.Dave Falch provides some good comments and demonstrations with his own FLIR pod on why he thinks that the recordings are unlikely to show latex, mylar balloons or a drone. Though, admittingly I am not 100% convinced that a drone can be dismissed.
If some of his tweets before the upload are anything to go by, I don't think objectivity is his strong suit.
He's not a FLIR camera expert. He was schooled by somebody on youtube over one of his "rubber duck" comments when he was confused about the FLIR allegedly displaying the object's speed.Dave Falch claims to be an expert on FLIR cameras but he seems to be biased towards the 'no explanation, therefore must be a space ship' camp, just like Letho and ny_uap. If he's an expert then why doesn't he model the coordinates of the aircraft and target and work out the position and velocity of the object, as Mick West has done. He seems to just be saying that the object is an irregular shape therfore it's not a balloon or drone and therefore has no explanation for what it is. A simple high school level calculation will show its an object floating on the wind and therefore likely a balloon or deflated lantern, or some such item.
Without asking you to reveal any personal details, could you say in broad terms how you know this? Personal knowledge? Professional training? Studying manuals, patents, etc? If it comes to an 'argument from authority' with Dave Falch, are we on strong ground?This is correct. The co-ords at the top right indicate where the crosshairs are over the ground and they refresh every second or so. The camera just takes the distance between two sets of coords, which are taken one second apart and then does a simple speed = distance / time calculation.
I'm pretty sure it does it with a terrain database and the angle of the camera. The GPS of the plane is known, so I think it just calculates the intersection of the camera's view vector, and the ground. I've seen setups that overlay street maps. The small registration error indicates it's coming from the camera vector, not image recognition.Out of curiosity, do you know how the system obtains or estimates the GPS co-ordinates of distant points on the ground? I can think of several ways it might do it, but some of them would require more sophisticated data than others.
I have a background in electronics and have worked in the defence industry for 21 years on a variety of equipment. For the last 12 years I have worked with airborne reconnaissance and surveillance systems, particularly infra red cameras. I have specific experience in architecting, designing and testing these systems in the lab and in flight trials. I have specific experience with the Wescam MX15 turret, which was used to record the Aguadilla ufo video - and I have commented greatly about it for this reason. The camera used to film Rubber Duck is made by FLIR Systems and is different to the MX15 but the general features are the same. Regarding the "argument from authority"... I don't consider myself an expert, but I do think I am suitably qualified to comment .Without asking you to reveal any personal details, could you say in broad terms how you know this? Personal knowledge? Professional training? Studying manuals, patents, etc? If it comes to an 'argument from authority' with Dave Falch, are we on strong ground?
Out of curiosity, do you know how the system obtains or estimates the GPS co-ordinates of distant points on the ground? I can think of several ways it might do it, but some of them would require more sophisticated data than others.
Yes @Mick West , it uses Digital Terrain Elevation Data (DTED) to find the elevation for any given lat long. The LRF can be used if a more accurate lat long and altitude is required, but this would be only occasionally. Contrary to some beliefs the LRF isn't continually firing.I'm pretty sure it does it with a terrain database and the angle of the camera. The GPS of the plane is known, so I think it just calculates the intersection of the camera's view vector, and the ground. I've seen setups that overlay street maps. The small registration error indicates it's coming from the camera vector, not image recognition.
...(etc).I have a background in electronics and have worked in the defence industry for 21 years on a variety of equipment. For the last 12 years I have worked with airborne reconnaissance and surveillance systems, particularly infra red cameras
So what? But were you an F-16 pilot? ;>)I have a background in electronics and have worked in the defence industry for 21 years on a variety of equipment. For the last 12 years I have worked with airborne reconnaissance and surveillance systems, particularly infra red cameras. I have specific experience in architecting, designing and testing these systems in the lab and in flight trials. I have specific experience with the Wescam MX15 turret, which was used to record the Aguadilla ufo video - and I have commented greatly about it for this reason. The camera used to film Rubber Duck is made by FLIR Systems and is different to the MX15 but the general features are the same. Regarding the "argument from authority"... I don't consider myself an expert, but I do think I am suitably qualified to comment .
Regarding the distant point calculation... The point is calculated using simple trigonometry. Knowing the aircraft location & altitude they take the line of sight direction of azimuth and elevation (or in this case depression) to determine where the line inspects with the earth's surface. Simple systems use a flat earth model, but this system seems to have a DTED (digital terrain elevation data) model so that the intersection is roughly in line with the actual earth's surface.
Unfortunately not. I've only managed to bag one fast jet flight, and that was a Hawk.So what? But were you an F-16 pilot? ;>)
Currently trapped in a boring Zoom meeting, help. Trying to work out an FOV on the side.
Put these coords in GE and measured the distance from the reticule to the right edge based on the small road down there. I got something like 85 metres, so roughly 170 metres for the entire screen. That'd correspond to a horizontal FOV of about 1.5°.
And the distance of the "duck" is ~2/3 of the distance to the ground, which confirms the 3-4 ft. range for its size.It seems like the tire tracks should be useful for estimating the size of the duck. Looking tires are typically about 5 feet apart.
And the distance of the "duck" is ~2/3 of the distance to the ground, which confirms the 3-4 ft. range for its size.
My precise FOV was 1.446°, slant range to object 4040 m / 13255 ft. Think we're all zeroing in on something like 3 - 4 ft for object size.Rough fitting it in GE give a horizontal FOV of 1.21°
The rough distance from left to right is 471 feet. Slant range of 3.6NM, 21874 feet which gives a HFOV of 2*atan(471/2/21874) in degrees = 1.23 degrees
I put the object at about 13,000 feet slant range, 1.2°FOV at that range is 272 feet the duck is VERY roughly 1% of the width of the screen, so about 3 feet wide?
Do we know the wind direction for that day? Ny_uap, the guy who originally released the video posted some info on Instagram about the weather conditions at that location for that date. The average wind speed was 8mph but he didn't get the direction.