Tags:
  1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The experts in the clip above are:
    Lt Col Chris Cook (ret)
    Metabunk 2019-06-23 14-46-23.

    Ross Aimer, commercial pilot (ret) NTSB consultant.
    Metabunk 2019-06-23 14-46-45.

    We only hear from Cook, who says:
    "That thing is hauling ass"
    "it's a little less than two thirds the speed of sound"
    "If this were some type of aircraft with a conventional propulsion system, we'd definitely see some type of heat signature. Everything we know about propulsion systems is they create an intense amount of heat."
     
  2. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    based on your video proof, I think you should add the word alleged or put "experts" in quotes.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    Mick,

    There's one thing I'm having trouble understanding about your speed estimate. During the time when the camera is locked onto the target the camera angles only change by a couple of degrees. If the target was flying much slower than the aircraft wouldn't the camera need to adjust its orientation much more to keep the target in the same position in the image ?
     
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It changes from 43° to 58°. Remember it's far away, 4.4 to 3.4 nautical miles, so that reduces the angles.
     
  5. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    You're right, I somehow misread those numbers the last time I watched the video.
     
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I contacted Ross, saying:
    He replied on the Youtube comments for the video:
    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M&lc=UgzLAogi0gvhA6WYhfV4AaABAg

     
  7. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Wow.

    "even if your calculations are relevant" ??? Kinda an odd thing for an Aerospace Engineer to say.

    does the show say the object was jumping in and out of the water? How can an object at 13,000 feet be simultaneously jumping in and out of the water? Is he talking about a different sighting?


    Not a very professional response.
     
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I was a little taken aback, but he's not an engineer, he's a retired pilot. He got a BS in Aerospace Engineering in the 1960s. He's had a solid career as a pilot and flight trainer but retired from that in 2009.

    His LinkedIn page says:
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/captain-ross-rusty-aimer-3891a59/
    Metabunk 2019-06-23 22-16-33.

    "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" is a bit of a red flag, as they are kind of rabid no-plane hit the Pentagon types, and have a variety of other bizarre ideas. I'd expect a professional to steer away from them. But at least he has the disclaimer.

    So he certainly has a lot of aviation experience, but I don't think he seems like someone who could actually analyze this video in any useful way.

    I don't like to point fingers at people. But if someone is presented as an expert, and that is used as evidence of something, then their expertize should be verified.

    I emailed him with:
     

    Attached Files:

    • Informative Informative x 2
  9. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    kinda an odd thing for a pilot to say too. no?
     
  10. Candy-O

    Candy-O New Member

    What seabird is that large and flies at 13,000 feet over open water? None that I can dig up. Albatrosses are large, but fly very low where the air is denser. Plus they do not fly in long straight lines, they swoop up and down endlessly.

    Herring Gulls are smaller, and fly around at 50- 100 feet on average (up to 1,000 feet when need to clear obstacles)


    Looks more like a balloon than a bird, no?
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    The main response from TTSA-footage believers is relentless appeals to alleged expert authority, with no footage analyses provided to support their appeals. Just shut up, listen and believe. And put that calculator down!

    They've elevated pilots to demigods, all-knowing experts by default. Does a professional driver have unquestionable authority to identify all things seen from a car? "I've been driving cars for 30 years, so I can instantly identify anything seen from my driver seat and can never be uncertain about anything I see." Um, no!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Looking back to discussions we had here on that, I find Brian Vincent cited a listing of maximum altitudes of birds, and 13,000 ft is actually not out of the question for birds. Though my sense is it's more likely a balloon than bird.

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_by_flight_heights
     
  13. Candy-O

    Candy-O New Member

    But vultures, cranes and other large high flying birds would not be doing it over the open ocean.

    The Frigatebird is a very large seabird that has been shown to fly up to 12,000 feet, but it's unclear whether their domain would overlap with the Roosevelt carrier group location when the gofast video was made. If the video was taken not too far off the Florida coast, it just might be in range. No way to know for sure.

    But yea, my hunch would be balloon.
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2019
  14. jarlrmai

    jarlrmai Member

    I've not seen the full segment (is it available anywhere?), did they pull the classic ask them a question about one thing and then portray it as an answer to a different question, i.e. ask them about the jet's speed then represent it as the speed of the object?

    Also what was our eventual conclusion about FoV? didn't we come with a an even narrower FoV than we first assumed based on the specs of the camera i.e. 0.7 rather than 1.5?
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    Canada goose in the winter? The Gimbal video was taken on January 20, and the Go Fast video around that time as well.
    [​IMG]
    One of the pilots talked about "little guys" flying in a V formation.
     
  16. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    I know a retired aerospace engineer who thought the "mystery missile" off the coast of California was a solid-propellant rocket and said, "Those who say otherwise don't know what they're talking about." I pointed him to the Contrail Science article and video about it.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  17. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    He conflates the Go Fast object with the Nimitz tic tac when he talks about outmaneuvering an F-18 and jumping in and out of water.

    By the way, DARPA's new balloons caused UFO sightings a few days ago.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2019
  18. saucerpilot

    saucerpilot New Member

    Hi.

    I am looking into the gofast video myself.

    Regarding the angle measure on the left side of the video, which I've read as described as the lookpoint elevation, or angle relative to the horizon, does anybody know exactly what is meant by that?

    Is it the angle relative to the plane perpendicular to the downward direction? Is it the angle relative to the true horizon, which would depend on your altitude? Or is it possible that it is measured against the aircraft's orientation?

    I'm new here, by the way.
     
  19. jarlrmai

    jarlrmai Member

    You should read this entire thread, there is detailed discussion of what the measurements are from the HUD obviously it's hard to get information on military hardware but we believe it to be the horizon.
     
  20. saucerpilot

    saucerpilot New Member

    I just looked through the thread again but I've missed the discussion on exactly the meaning of that angle measure. I assume the angle is relative to the horizontal (i.e. perpendicular to downward direction). But I just want to be sure it isn't actually relative to the real horizon.

    edited for clarity.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2019
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The most detailed docs are actually for a simulator version, which I assume are based on the real thing:
    https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/G_Advanced_Targeting_FLIR_(ATFLIR)
    I'd assumed this mean relative to horizontal. If it were the real horizon then adds nearly 3° to the angle relative to horizontal.
     
  22. saucerpilot

    saucerpilot New Member

    I can't think of a reason why it should be measured against the real horizon as opposed to the horizontal. So I guess I will assume it is measured against the horizontal, and move along.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  23. jarlrmai

    jarlrmai Member

    It would be interesting to see if the various videos can be recreated in simulators such as DCS-World which has a F/A-18C.
     
  24. jarlrmai

    jarlrmai Member

    Looks like MS FSX with the Superbug pack has a simulated ATFLIR pod.
     
  25. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    Metabunk member Getoffthisplanet simulated Go Fast in 3ds Max.
    https://www.metabunk.org/posts/220906

    The film The Nimitz Enounters re-creates the tic tac chase. Here's the part where the tic tac "mirrors" the pilot. Notice how it's hard to tell whether the tic tac is actually moving in a circle or just staying still in the center like a balloon.

    Source: https://youtu.be/PRgoisHRmUE?t=1003
     
  26. jarlrmai

    jarlrmai Member

    3DS MAX is one thing, but you are making uneducated assumptions on the camera tech, I made the Blender GOFAST FLIR parallax demonstration Mick linked in his YT video.

    Some of the flight simulators have simulated versions of the ATFLIR cameras similar to those used in the 3 TTSA videos. It would be interesting to see what they look like someone were to fly and track a small slow moving object or zoom in on a distant jet and roll the plane. It might be that the IR stuff is not simulated correctly in them though i.e. the artifacts don't show because the simulations are not accurately the representing heat and flaw of IR cameras and are maybe just applying a different texture.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6h77gE-wM4&list=PLaP8ILuUzEPJenO5B0YKqfNvpZdLejg78&index=19&t=0s


    This video would seem to indicate that it's just a different shader or texture applied for FLIR.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2019
  27. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    If you want to simulate the glare from the engine and the camera roll, I'm not sure if even DIRSIG can do that.
     
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This might have come up before and I've forgotten, but I'd been assuming that the "Lookpoint Azimuth Indication"
    Metabunk 2019-06-29 15-08-13.
    Was relative to the forward axis of the jet. But I see here:
    https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/G_Advanced_Targeting_FLIR_(ATFLIR)
    i.e. it's the heading relative to the absolute direction of travel, not the forward facing axis of the page.

    Then there's the dot, which I briefly looked at for different reasons, and then forgot.

    It appears this dot is actually relative to the structure of the plane - i.e. it indicates where the pilot would look. It does seem to be different to the Lookpoint Azimuth. Like here it's off by 1.6° not a lot though.
    Metabunk 2019-06-29 15-24-30.

    I'm not sure if this difference in my assumptions is relevant, but when winds come into play, it could be. Maybe for Nimitz.
     
  29. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    I'm noticing something that seems a bit odd with the gofast video that I haven't seen discussed before.

    It appears that the target object (which is wider than it high) tends to maintain an orientation that is aligned with the image axes, while its direction of travel is diagonal to those axes.

    Here is an example from frame 500:

    gofast-zoom.

    It seems unlikely that an airborne object (whether self-propelled or wind driven) would maintain such an orientation.

    One possibility is that the actual target object is smaller than the resolution of the camera and the form we are seeing is actually the camera's point-spread function (PSF) - ie. it's response to a point source, which may be diffraction limited.
     
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's direction of apparent travel. As noted extensively in this thread, the object is half-way between the camera and the ocean, so the majority of its apparent motion is the parallax effect from the motion of the jet.

    For comparison, see this hawk, which seems to be flying in a direction different to the direction it is facing:

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=28&v=h_f7ElR3oVs


    The apparent shape of the object is worth noting though, and one of the things that makes me sway back towards "bird" rather than "balloon".
     
  31. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    Yes, OK. But doesn't it still seem odd that the object's orientation (even, for example, if stationary) would exactly line up with the image axes (for at least a significant portion of the tracking time) ?
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2019
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think you can't really judge much on an orientation other than it appears to be wider than it is high and it appears to be oriented horizontal (i.e. parallel to the actual horizon). There's just way to much noise in there to get much out. Be wary of looking at individual frames too, here's a couple of frames later:
    Metabunk 2019-07-06 07-30-34.
     
  33. Candy-O

    Candy-O New Member


    So the go-fast is a TIE fighter? [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, the bars on either side are part of the ATFLIR screen display, indicating that the object is being tracked
     
  35. Candy-O

    Candy-O New Member


    you are no fun
     
  36. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I've had far too many jokes misinterpreted as being serious. Hence #12 in the General Guidelines:

    https://www.metabunk.org/posting-guidelines.t2064/

    12. Avoid Humor and Sarcasm. Everyone likes a chuckle, but not everyone recognizes humor. It gets in the way of communication. Just say what you mean.​