1. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    I agree that the object in the video is likely not the tic tac. For calculations, I've been using 0.7 and 2.8 degrees for narrow (NAR) and medium (MFOV) field of view, based on the old spec sheet.
    https://web.archive.org/web/2009121...s/sas/documents/content/rtn_sas_ds_atflir.pdf

    I've been using 30 nautical mile range to the object in the video just because the secondhand fightersweep account says
    It's quite possible that by the time the FLIR saw the object, it was closer than 30 nmi. The above account also says that the object was "hovering at their precise CAP point," which corroborates Princeton's radar contact, and suggests that this was not an ordinary civilian jet. But the account also says that the F-18's radar indicated that the object was hovering below them and that the FLIR was slaved to the radar, yet the FLIR footage shows the object moving to the left above them, assuming that TTSA's video annotation is correct when it says "Sensor aimed 6° above aircraft axis."

    Later, the fightersweep account says
    Yet the FLIR footage shows the object being tracked as it moves left, not "hanging in midair," assuming the F-18 was heading straight, since the artificial horizon stays level. At the end of the video, the object leaves the zoomed-in field of view with normal non-shocking speed, and it should've been trivial to zoom out and reacquire it.
     
  2. Josquin

    Josquin Member

    Whether the speed is shocking or not depends on how far away the object was. Assuming the motion to the left off the screen at the end of the video was due to actual motion of the object, and not a camera movement artifact, it could actually be multi-mach speed if the object was far enough away.
     
  3. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    If it's 30 nmi away, it's about 500 mph. It would have to be really far away and really big and high up to be going multi-mach speed, but no matter how far away it was, it wasn't moving too fast to reacquire the lost track. It was tracked just fine when it was moving left at about 0.23 degrees/second prior to losing track. And why would the fightersweep account assume that it's very far away after stating that it was about 30 nmi away?
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2018
  4. Josquin

    Josquin Member

    Hmm... I'm getting a speed of 760 mph if it's at 30 nautical miles distance. That's considerably above the speed of sound at that altitude.
     
  5. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    34.5234 miles * .23 deg/sec * (pi/180) rad/deg * 3600 sec/hour = 499 mph
     
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member


    It's quite possible camera motion though, which is unrelated to distance.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Josquin

    Josquin Member

    How did you get 0.23 deg/sec? I was using 0.35 deg/sec, since it moves through half of the screen in about a second.
     
  8. Josquin

    Josquin Member

    Indeed, but that's a separate question! :)
     
  9. Josquin

    Josquin Member

    A Reddit post from 4 years ago appears to be another account of the Nimitz incident from a crew member who was not a pilot. It contains a potential explanation of what happened to David Fravor's "gun tape":

     
  10. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    It moved from 0 to 8 degrees azimuth in 35 seconds, or 0.23 deg/sec average.
    When the track was lost, it only moved a quarter of the field of view in a second, because it was at 2X zoom.
     
  11. Josquin

    Josquin Member

    Isn't the 2X zoom already accounted for by reducing the 1.5 degree FOV for NAR by half?
     
  12. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    I'm using 0.7 degrees for the NAR FOV at 1X zoom. See my post above.
     
  13. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    Nice find. Other Reddit posts by the same person provide more information, including info about the Nimitz radar
    It sounds like he's talking about the Nimitz radar, as opposed to the Princeton's more powerful radar.
    Strange that he says he didn't talk to any radar analysts, but then quotes one.
    0.8 mach at 20,000 ft would be 566 mph, which is consistent with the FLIR video.
     
  14. Josquin

    Josquin Member

    Not sure what to make of this, but NASA was conducting a X-43A scramjet test flight on Nov. 16, 2004 at the San Clemente test range. A B-52 was flown at 40,000 ft and Mach 0.8 to carry and release the test vehicle:

    Could the object in the FLIR video be the B-52?
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2018
  15. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    It sounds like he was talking about the aircraft radar and not the ships radar. He said his squadron had only one radar analyst. He is referring to an aircraft squadron.
     
  16. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    His original post said
    So they saw the aircraft on radar for three days in a row before scrambling the F-18s. Sounds like the ship's radar.
     
  17. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Probably . Remember ships are linked. It may not be Nimitz's radar. They used to call it NTDS. Naval Tactical Data System.
     
  18. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Here's a nice graphic (from here) that might help explain focal length.

    [​IMG]
    It shows "Super telephoto" @ ~4˚. The NAR setting for most of the Nimitz UFO is @ 1.5° x 1.5°, so even beyond super telephoto! This really changes my impression of the target. Given the pilot that took the Nimitz footage wasn't Fravor and arrived at a later time, we can't say for sure if the target was ever seen with the naked eye by anyone. Huge factor!
     
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    My quote there is conflating "focal length" and "field of view". Focal length is (kind of) the distance in mm between the lens and the sensor (the top number in your diagram). Field of view is an angle (the bottom number).
     
  20. Josquin

    Josquin Member

    So can you confirm what the FOV in the video would be at NAR with 2x zoom? 0.7 degrees or 0.35 degrees?
     
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No. I've seen both 1.5° and 0.7° for the NAR FOV. (2x would be half that)
    https://web.archive.org/web/2009121...s/sas/documents/content/rtn_sas_ds_atflir.pdf
    Metabunk 2018-01-22 15-23-31.


    https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/G_Advanced_Targeting_FLIR_(ATFLIR)
    I would tend towards Raytheon's numbers.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    The NAR field of view (FOV) is more like 0.7°. As far as resolution, you want the instantaneous field of view (IFOV), which is the FOV seen by the sensor, and is usually given as the FOV divided by the number of pixels, so in the NAR setting with a 640x480 pixel sensor, the IFOV is about 20 to 25 microradians per pixel. The resolution in IR is also diffraction limited, so adding more pixels won't make the image much sharper. If the target length is 1/25 the display, then it's about 640/25=25.6 pixels long, although the display seems to be cropped to be more square, so it may be fewer than 640 pixels wide.

    Anyway, we have the video, Fravor's eyewitness account, and various accounts of radar contacts. Some of them describe weird motion, others don't. The video itself doesn't really show anything weird, but the FLIR camera was reportedly slaved to the F-18's radar, which detected the object "at their precise CAP point," which corroborates the Princeton's radar, which reportedly detected weird motions like an object descending from 80,000 feet, which is what Fravor was vectored to intercept when he saw the weird tic tac.
     
  23. Clouds Givemethewillies

    Clouds Givemethewillies Active Member

    This is a 747 (CKS977) at 65 miles, cropped to give a 0 .7degree field of view. From a webcam video.. 18/01/2018 16:54. CKS977.
     
  24. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    I cropped it to simulate 2X zoom, reduced it to about 240x240 pixels, which is how small the original mpeg file was, and then resized it back to about 500x500.
    [​IMG]
     
  25. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Do you think that it would be going right to left like the Nimitz target, which seem to move along that vector fairly slowly?

    I used my video editor to count frames at each LOS degree.

    First in each row is each LOS degree, second is the range of time (eg, 4135…4143) that LOS occurs by the ATFLIR screen clock, third is its frame range (eg, 0-255) from beginning to end of footage, and fourth are its frames per LOS degree.

    4˚R, 4135…4143, 0-255 (255)
    3˚R, 4143…4147, 256-381 (125)
    4˚R, 4148…4148, 382-411 (29)
    3˚R, 4149…4158, 412-704 (292)
    2˚R, 4158…4207, 705-962 (257)
    1˚R, 4207…4209, 963-1036 (73)
    1˚L, 4209…4213, 1037-1148 (111)
    0˚L, 4213…4219, 1149-1334 (185)
    1˚L, 4219…4223, 1335-1436 (101)
    2˚L, 4223…4229, 1437-1592 (155)
    3˚L, 4229…4232, 1593-1712 (119)
    4˚L, 4232…4236, 1713-1838 (125)
    5˚L, 4236…4240, 1839-1946 (107)
    6˚L, 4240…4243, 1947-2042 (95)
    7˚L, 4243…4248, 2043-2187 (144)
    8˚L, 4248…4249, 2188-2212 (coherence lost)


    From 4˚R to 0˚L (excluding 0) is 1,142 frames
    From 0˚L to 4˚L (excluding 0) is 500 frames

    So there's an asymmetry in its motion. However, might this be an artifact of the F18's motion? It stays very level throughout, so there's no sign of banking. However, the rudder affects yaw, allowing for turning left and right while maintaining horizontal stability. So is it even possible to tease apart the target's from the F18's motion?
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2018
  26. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    You mean going right to left? 0.23 deg/sec isn't slow, it's 500 mph if it's 30 nmi away.
    The F-18 banks right a little bit throughout the video, but probably not enough to account for the motion, since it looks like it banks more in the beginning when the motion is slower. It's hard to tease apart just from eyeballing the bank angle in the video.
     
  27. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Yes, thanks. Fixed that. So interesting that the implied speed would fit a jet.
     
  28. Clouds Givemethewillies

    Clouds Givemethewillies Active Member

    0.2 deg./sec. is fairly typical of what I see with airliners crossing at about 70 km. range. If you call one radian 60 deg,, and take a typical speed as 250 m/sec. it works out at around 15 degrees/sec. /( range in km.) at closest approach, less if not tangential. tracking rate.PNG
     
  29. Clouds Givemethewillies

    Clouds Givemethewillies Active Member

    This one is closer, and a smaller plane - EasyJet something,. 25 miles range, alt. 28000 ft. Horizontal field of view 2.6 degrees. vlcsnap-2018-01-17-20h32m07s889.
     
  30. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Here's a gif animation of the full 2x TV segment @ 3.5x speed.

    [​IMG]

    It seems almost we're initially seeing it somewhat down its length and it gradually rotates so that we're seeing it flush alongside. It also seems like we get some non-capsule-shape indications at the very end of the segment, along its bottom, and its left-side nose becomes more tapered perhaps on account of an apparent slight lower protrusion from the capsule form at the closing. That changes may be clues of being a jet.
     
  31. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    It ought to be pointed out how TTSA damaged the Nimitz evidence by squeezing it horizontally versus the original file posted in 2007. Here I've normed their heights, revealing that their copy of the Nimitz footage was narrowed. These are not the exact same frames.

    [​IMG]

    The original is square, just as the ATFLIR FOV is supposed to be. Fixing TTSA's footage requires a width correction of exactly 110%. Youtube (at least in the past) would sometimes squeeze videos horizontally. To test for that possible cause I tested the TTSA logo placed over the footage for circularity, as it too should be squeezed if the cause originates with youtube. Their logo is a perfect circle. So it seems they somehow managed to damage the evidence they "released." People have paid them $2.5 million for having provided damaged evidence, probably of jets.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  32. Clouds Givemethewillies

    Clouds Givemethewillies Active Member

  33. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    Are you starting to see what I was describing in my previous post?
     
  34. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    I did wonder if this was a weather balloon/Project Mogul sort of thing, and when Fravor talked about the tic tac "mirroring" him, like being at 6 o'clock when he was at 12 o'clock, could the tic tac just be a balloon ascending vertically and Fravor overestimating the range to it as he was circling it before it popped? But then Slaight should've seen that from above, and some accounts describe the capsule moving fast and straight. And where did it come from, the submarine?
     
  35. Clouds Givemethewillies

    Clouds Givemethewillies Active Member

    If estimates of of FOV, and angular velocity are correct, then the object would seem to be considerably smaller than an Easyjet A319 at a transverse speed of 500 knots. The slower the target it is, the closer and smaller the object becomes.
     
  36. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Not really. It looks more like a tic tac shape than a plane shape. But the last frames in TV mode seem to show signs of it having a more complex form.
     
  37. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    When the various accounts
    Do you see it now?

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
  38. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Not bad. Ya, I can kinda of see that. But I believe the silhouette of objects seen in visible light against a brighter background like the sky at great distance tend to diminish or narrow in size rather than bloom. The brighter background tends to 'shine into' their volume. But this TV target would seem to bloom by your proposed interpretation.

    That said, given Fravor didn't see this target himself and only after looking at this footage said it looked like the UFO he saw, the value of the evidence in the Nimitz case, imo, drops significantly. Consider also that the pilot report attributes no opinion of the pilots who took this footage as to whether this target behaved unusually. The fact that the report was made to record Fravor's account and fails to mention that the other pilots who later on filmed this target also witnessed extraordinary behavior tends to suggest they didn't witness anything out of the ordinary.

    It bothers me that Fravor's statements about "the UFO" jumble together what he saw with his eyes, what radar showed and what this footage shows. That he so easily blends together what may be different objects seen on different systems at different times into one continuous object has to make the critical thinker wary. The 'extraordinary evidence' criterion is the gold standard we have to keep constantly in mind here, and that kind of commingling memory is exactly contrary. The given evidence in this case simply cannot even come close to meeting Sagan's burden.
     
  39. Peter B

    Peter B New Member

    A Pedant writes: It was actually Marcello Truzzi who coined the apothegm about extraordinary evidence. Apparently not a lot of people know that.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 26, 2018
    • Informative Informative x 1
  40. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Just occurred to me that the longer time it takes for the LOS to travel from 4˚R to 0˚L than from 0˚L to 4˚L I demonstrated above is consistent with getting closer to a distant target traveling right to left, because a target traveling at a constant speed would cover a smaller fraction of a given FOV when further away than when closer. There's also more back-and-forth-degree variance during the 4˚R to 0˚L period, implying the target was harder to track when it was further away, so the tracking is then more prone to error from local turbulence affecting the camera and causing it to make LOS-degree backtracks.