Discussion in 'UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal' started by Mick West, Oct 23, 2017.
Yes, looks like an airplane that's turning to its right or to the camera's left.
I think it's more likely flying away, and so turning to everyone's left.
It was growing over time in the video. To borrow Ian's graphic:
The 'turning airplane' may be a case of pareidolia, too... It works both ways.
I edited the gamma curve to flesh out subtle changes in brightness; the differences in brightness are real, not imaginary:
The TV image is on the left, Ian's combined image is on the right.
Growing means it's getting closer, not necessarily that it's flying towards you.
The Jet speed is ~250 knots CAS @ 20,000 feet, which is around 335 knots true airspeed.
I can't remember now, did someone calculate distances and sizes based on closing velocities?
What differences? It's a dark blob surrounded by a fuzzy grey border.The border is not significantly different on the top or the bottom. Here I've rotated the TV image 180°, one can still imagine it's being lit from "above" here.
There's not a lot of pixels there, there's also some compression artifacting. It's dangerous to read too much into it.
Here's the original video with pixels color coded on brightness.
It's just an indistinct blob, surrounded by blur. Starts out like:
No, I don't agree that the 180 degrees flipped image looks the same. It does not have the gradual shading giving the impression of depth on top of the object.
I was the one who made the 'closing in' computation by the way, it's on the previous page of this thread.
Concerning the 'airplane', I've made a picture with all the frames of the last 'TC mode' section in the video. You can clearly see that the 'airplane' picture is just random noise that sometimes triggers the brain into seeing an airplane.
The 'wings' disappear and then appear again at a different spot - they are just 'bulges' of noise.
Remarkably consistent for noise. I wouldn't say I'm seeing a plane in there, however I'm seening something that's clearly NOT a symmetrical caplet.
It's really unclear why you are saying that when there's gradual shading all the way around the object in these images.
Here's a slightly more detailed gradient mapped version of the video. It's interesting it that it also brings out some the background artifacts and camera motion.
But more interestingly it reveals more of the shape of the blob in the final vis frames:
This is not simply noise causing the asymmetric division - a dumbbell/eyeglasses shape that's rounder on the right and protruding up and to the left. This is very blurred, but it's representing something about the actual image, which is probably related the the actual shape of the object.
If I 4x the resolution you can see the evenness of the the shading even better:
Here's the most caplet (tic-tac) like shape earlier:
This is the last frame:
This is the first one after lock on
To my eyes, yes there is gradual shading all the way around but it is asymmetrical.
If Ian is right, the object is illuminated by the sun from above and - to a lesser extent - by the sea from below.
In that case you would expect a larger illuminated part at the top of the object, and that is what it looks like to me:
This asymmetry makes a 180 degrees flipped image look different and the image above look like a tic tac illuminated from above, at least to the pattern matching circuits in my brain (but maybe that last tic-tac was one too many )
It looks like a fuzzy blob to me but just for fun I tried superimposing a picture of an f18 over one of the blobs:
You are just drawing lines where you think you see things. The gradient mapped images give a more accurate look at the size and symmetry the fringe. You can do a similar thing with curves:
This one is better because I have the overlaid segments locked tight, so there's no random wavering of the overlays. This also lets the overlaid data speak for itself w/o superimposed suggestions.
In this one I superimpose a suggested tic-tac shape:
At the time I was really excited that those overlays might be proving Fravor's claim. But a problem that Agent K raised and after careful literature review seems to be true is that the ATFLIR does not build a multi-sensor-based 'meta-object' onto which it places the hot spot where it exists on the object if that location is off the center of the object. So the apparent off-center placement of the hot spot does not mean it's on the upper edge of the object, ie, it's not necessarily an almost perfect tic-tac shape.
However, I'd say I'm only 95% convinced that Agent K's counterargument is right. Perhaps the public-access literature on this military hardware does not reflect its actual capability or perhaps the radar acts as a third sensor and IR and TV are mapped accurately onto the radar-detected object since the radar presumably tracks at all times, and the hot spot does appear to be off center contrary to single-sensor-centroid tracking. Whatever, I keep an open mind, I'm ready to believe Fravor if the data fall into place with his claims. And I also find his witness account and supported by James Slaight hard to easily dismiss.
If there are ETs in our skies, I'd hate to be so dense I couldn't realize that, and if there aren't, I'd hate to be so gullible as to believe there are. But altogether, I think it better to err on the side of cognitive density.
Just been playing around with this and it's an excellent way of visualizing the gradients in Photoshop.
I've attached the curve used above (although it's easy to recreate).
I think this shows that it has to be a blur surrounding an irregular object.
The sensor elevation angle is 5 degrees, so it should see the jet from below, not above. That's why my picture depicts it from below.
Another interesting related photoshop thing is "Filter -> Stylize -> Trace Contour", a more automated way of doing something like what @Kaen was doing above.
Here's the 10 and 30 contours overlaid after greyscaling.
Presumably when these systems lock onto a friendly military plane or civil aviation as we see it do in this clip, massive warnings go off, are the warnings displayed on the monitor screen or by some other means?
That's odd. I always assumed they were looking down at it since in at least the fightersweep article it says it was a few thousand ft below them:
If the ATFLIR pod is looking up then they must have locked on to some other object than what they were detecting on radar!
The fightersweep article also says they get first radar contact when around 30nm away, so the footage should be less than that:
But the ATFLIR range finder shows the object is out of range:
The ATFLIR can detect objects within 40nm. If the object is indeed 30-40ft and 10nm away the ATFLIR should have been able to get a laser range reading. Looks like the object in the video is something else much further away.
Fighter jets are pretty manoeuvrable, it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s standard practice to approach from below as it gives you a visual advantage
Your last few post are highly speculative. Perhaps you can research some of these 'thoughts' and present some actual data that would be useful.
More speculative than doodling aircraft inside pixelated blobs? In fact the original statement that they are filming it from below because the FLIR is angled upwards is speculative as the FLIR’s angle has no bearing on the position of the aircraft relative to the object.
The point being that such things as IFF (International Friend or Foe) transponder properties are googleable and therefore not in keeping with the Posting Guidelines.
I don't understand this statement.
Of course it does. If the FLIR is looking up then it means the object is positioned above the horizontal plane of the aircraft, which is in level flight. The angle essentially is the position of the object relative to the aircraft (especially as we don't know distance).
I was more expressing surprise at posts suggesting they wouldn’t know it was an aircraft but I think the suggestion is they did know but it’s been presented to the public as unidentified.
How do we know the aircraft is in level flight? If they were flying towards it in 3D they would be gradually descending.
On the assumption that the axis of the FLIR is aligned with the plane's axis , then (angular) position of the object relative to the aircraft's axis is precisely what is displayed.
Well for example if an aircraft is flying at an elevation of -15 degrees and the camera is at +5 then the camera crosshair is filming -10 below the horizontal.
Ah! You think the angular camera position readout is referenced to gravity. Is it ?
FLIR is aligned with the axis of the aircraft so +5 degrees means its crosshair is pointing 5 degrees above the angle of the axis.
Citation needed. There's two plausible options here — relative to level (gravity) and relative to the horizontal plane of the aircraft. It's good not to make assumptions.
The pressure altitude of the plane stays at FL200. 19990 or 20000, bottom right. So it's in level flight - which does not necessarily mean the plane is level
[According to the fightersweep article] When they first saw something on radar it was 15'000-20'000 feet below them and 30 nmi away. That correspond to an angle of about -arctan(17500/182283) ~= -5.5 degree from level (more as they got closer). So if the ATFLIR is aligned to the plane axis, they would have to have been pointing down at least -10.5 (+/-0.8) degrees. Could an F18 be in level flight and still point down -10.5 degrees?
In the alleged executive report that was posted before they give similar figures (30-40nmi and 15-20k ft below). They also say that the ATFLIR display the elevation of the object as minus 5 deg. Although, I can't see a minus in the video (or the figure in the report). It could be that the ATFLIR have downwards angles defined as positive, or whoever made the report made a mistake thinking it must be negative since it was described as being below them.
Source: https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2018/05/18/TIC TAC UFO EXECUTIVE REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf
The executive report actually says the object was at the same altitude or up to 5'000 ft below so I misinterpreted the fightersweep article. I.e. they estimated the object had an altitude of 15'000 to 20'000 ft, approximately straight ahead (but the ATFLIR is looking 6-5 degree up).
I think it's one of several mistakes that I pointed out before.
Negative elevations are below, like the in Go Fast video.
The annotations in the video from To The Stars Academy say, "Sensor aimed 6 degrees above aircraft axis."
Ahh, sorry missed that, I didn't begin reading the executive report until now so I must have glossed over it. I think you are right, the other video clearly has a negative angle:
The pilot who claims to have intercepted it David Fravor has done a new interview. He says the TTSA report has got a few mistakes in it for example the Princeton controller who directed them to the target was male not female. He says the report was compiled several years after the events. He also says he filmed his encounter with object he says FLIR video [taken at a different time to his encounter]was in high resolution and it shows details such as small L shaped appendages on its underside. He says “good luck getting hold of that film” implying it’s been suppressed.
Thanks for that, very interesting.
It seems that David is talking about the FLIR video of another jet, not his own recording.
But he also seems to suggest that there is either more footage or there is more detailed footage available than we currently have:
These may be the two bulges underneath the object visible in the last frames of the low-res FLIR1 TV-mode segment:
The video before this one on the same youtube channel, the channel owner Jeremy Corbell interviews an alleged radar operator on Nimitz who claims he got to see a much more detailed video where he sees a flying saucer and several tic-tacs come down to dock with it...
That doesn't agree with what Fravor describes and I wonder why he didn't ask Fravor about that? It should have been easy for him to confirm it if it was true, and it certainly would be interesting to hear his opinion about it and the alleged radar operator.
I don't think it's clear he believes it has been suppressed, it could just mean that the original high resolution video has been lost. It was a training exercise from many years ago. It doesn't seem strange to me if they don't keep good records of reports from training exercises from over ten years ago.
Note that they were upset that their colleagues didn't take them seriously and they weren't even debriefed properly, as can be seen on the last two pages of the report:
Doesn't sound like they were being suppressed exactly, more angry they weren't taken seriously and that they might have been put in danger if they had been sent to the test site of an experimental weapon.
Separate names with a comma.