Wouldn't the liquid also take longer to warm up?Also the level of oil in these tanks shows up as black hot, The liquid will retain the heat longer than the vessel containing it.
Yes.Wouldn't the liquid also take longer to warm up?
Hmm, yeah you're right. But if we are assuming the video is at night then there'd be practically zero solar radiation, so everything would be cooling. To be clear - my post was referring to the black hot / white hot question, not the time of day.Wouldn't the liquid also take longer to warm up?
Wanted to call attention to thatThere is also the spatial filtering on (the SPA on the overlay). This will apply edge sharpening to everything.
All values, from deepest black to perfect white, and all the greys in between, should be present in your negatives (if using film), computer files (if using digital) and prints.
With very few exceptions, all of the following tones should be present in your photographs. The tones do not have to be evenly represented, but each one should appear somewhere in your image.
One reason you want all of the tones is because the light greys give you detail in your highlights, and the dark greys give you detail in your shadows.
My issue is, the footage we have does the opposite of what you describe.Two things I don't know:
-Were these changes in brightness automatic, or was the this manual? Was the system doing it, or was the operator doing it at the time? I would think it was the operator, so that he could understand what it was he was seeing.
-Was the change in brightness done optically within the camera or was it purely electronic?
But that's not what we see in the footage in the OP.I would think that the operator was twisting a dial experimentally. Just to see what looked better. Hunting around. If the image looked crappier instead of better, he'd go back.
Because our UAP video is a surveillance video, the purpose of changing brightness is to give us humans the most detail. So we can see what the heck we're looking at. But the common factor is getting the most detail out of the image. That's why the surveillance system can adjust brightness in the image the operator can see.
I think that for this kind surveillance footage the goal isn't optimizing details within an object, but discernability between objects. You don't want to identify what you are looking at, you want to be sure to detect if there is something that shouldn't be here. If there is something you send guards of whatever to intercept and identify.My issue is, the footage we have does the opposite of what you describe.
If brightness is being adjusted then it's adjusted to see the least amount of detail in the object.
So why make it undiscernible?I think that for this kind surveillance footage the goal isn't optimizing details within an object, but discernability between objects.
Dont know why its thought to be birthday balloons. It matters because when i paused Mick's interview above, by a fluke i saw a clear g letter and do see that symbol on Ramadan balloons..so might help narrow down what it is
The people's heads, presumably uncovered, are also darker than the bodies.Edit: I just noticed, the legs are blacker than bodies, and limbs are usually cooler than core. However, flak vest insulation could make the core appear colder than the extremities.
It is discernible. On almost every frame you can see that there is something. It only become hard to discern when it is in front of something with a temperature that is "close" to its own, but you can't do much to help that.So why make it undiscernible?
my first thought was 19 (backward to our view) but later footage looks like something attached to what would be the 1 (almost an "h" type shape). and the tail of the "9" seems a bit too curved to me... although i dont really know where iraq balloon shops buy their wares. their numbers could be more curvey.In isolation, that 'letter g' looks to me more like the number 9 (or 6). We do after all call them Arabic numerals! The number might be part of a birthday balloon assembly. Though I must say I don't see the symbol as clearly as Deirdre does.
The figure on the right also appears to be warmer under the arms. Definitely black-hot!The people's heads, presumably uncovered, are also darker than the bodies.
Also the level of oil in these tanks shows up as black hot, The liquid will retain the heat longer than the vessel containing it.
Here are the average September highs and lows in Baghdad. (Sorry, it's in Fahrenheit.) About thirty degrees difference, and of course that is only the air temperature, not accounting for the difference in heat capacity for buildings, vehicles, oil tanks, etc.Also the people, if this was daylight, would be 37 degrees on potentially 50 degree ground, so they would look cooler. So its not crazy that people are cooler than the ground. But, if this is October in Iraq, then temps would be less than 37, and especially at night. The date seems to go between 2017 and 2018, so who really knows when this was.
Assuming now its black hot, that means the building air is warmer than the outside, hence why it looks dark on the open doors. My bias again, I just assumed Iraq was always hot, and that was cold air conditioned air coming out.
I just want to get this guys opinion as he is the first operator of the MX-20 I have been able to talk to.This has been explained many times.
Just to be clear, I agree with everything you've said about this (up to this post).It is discernible.
It does, but it isnt used in the video.My understanding is the MX-20 does not have have an auto track mode that can 'lock on' to a visual target and track it as we see in videos from systems that do have this like the Raytheon ATFLIR.
If you are going to quote someone, don't paraphrase. Provide the quote and the link. This is required by the Posting Guidelines.I just want to get this guys opinion as he is the first operator of the MX-20 I have been able to talk to.
I know you are mostly ignoring the context of what the witnesses told Corbell, but I am not. According to Corbell the witnesses said the MX-20 could not lock on to the object, and the object was not visible with NVG's. This suggests some type of camouflage technology, and the color shift we are observing could be technology intended to confuse IR targeting.
I have not seen anything like this color shift in my very limited experience, but maybe it is a common occurrence. That is what I want to know.
I want to point out that Corbell saying people on the ground couldn't see the object with NVG is not the same as the object was not visible with NVG's. There's a very real possibility that they just failed to spot it, be it because they were looking on the wrong place, or they were looking at the right place and missed it, or the object was indeed not visible with NVG (which could just mean it was somewhat transparent to the light frequency used, no need for camouflage).According to Corbell the witnesses said the MX-20 could not lock on to the object, and the object was not visible with NVG's.
I just want to get this guys opinion as he is the first operator of the MX-20 I have been able to talk to.
I know you are mostly ignoring the context of what the witnesses told Corbell, but I am not. According to Corbell the witnesses said the MX-20 could not lock on to the object, and the object was not visible with NVG's. This suggests some type of camouflage technology, and the color shift we are observing could be technology intended to confuse IR targeting.
I have not seen anything like this color shift in my very limited experience, but maybe it is a common occurrence. That is what I want to know.
I initially said that the MX-20 doesn't have an auto track system - the MX turrets I've used didn't - but there is an 'optional extra' that can be included in MX cameras called AVT , advanced video tracking, that does include a lock on tracking function.My understanding is the MX-20 does not have have an auto track mode that can 'lock on' to a visual target and track it as we see in videos from systems that do have this like the Raytheon ATFLIR.
What are the suggested balloons at whatever distance supposed to look like with nvgs? Maybe they are hard to spot. I dunno.There's a very real possibility that they just failed to spot it, be it because they were looking on the wrong place, or they were looking at the right place and missed it, or the object was indeed not visible with NVG (which could just mean it was somewhat transparent to the light frequency used, no need for camouflage).
Question: In your experience as a MX-20 operator have you personally ever observed a object switch from white to black and back to white?As a likely translucent object near air temperature, this behaviour doesnt look unreasonable to me. Different, because most objects have a solid temperature, but not outside possibility.
I mean, the object is not large (~2m maximum). If it's 500 feet up (and thus also smaller than 2m), it would be extremely hard to spot in broad daylight or any other condition you can imagine.What are the suggested balloons at whatever distance supposed to look like with nvgs? Maybe they are hard to spot. I dunno.
I may be incorrect, and can't find it as this thread is just getting longer and longer, but I understood the "witnesses" just to be "people who saw the video" as opposed to real-time witnesses. Is that right? If so, what they told Corbell isn't evidence of anything.I know you are mostly ignoring the context of what the witnesses told Corbell, but I am not. According to Corbell the witnesses said the MX-20 could not lock on to the object, and the object was not visible with NVG's.
There's at least one witness that must have been actually there when it was recorded, since that's where the claim that the object went into the water and then shot off comes from (I assume at least, since nobody else has seen this longer version of the footage where this happens)I may be incorrect, and can't find it as this thread is just getting longer and longer, but I understood the "witnesses" just to be "people who saw the video" as opposed to real-time witnesses. Is that right? If so, what they told Corbell isn't evidence of anything.
That's an interesting question. If the sensor operator for the aerostat saw the object real-time only via his IR camera feed (as opposed to with the Mark 1 eyeball), is that operator a witness? I watched the second a/c hit the WTC in real-time on live TV, does that make me a witness?I may be incorrect, and can't find it as this thread is just getting longer and longer, but I understood the "witnesses" just to be "people who saw the video" as opposed to real-time witnesses. Is that right? If so, what they told Corbell isn't evidence of anything.
When it comes down to it, there's limited provenance for this video and its context, just Corbell and one or two veterans from the base who've said someone else recorded it and told them a story about what happened and then how they joked about it being a spaghetti monster based on this and apparently longer clips of the same indicent. Unlike, for example, the Pentagon-released FLIR video, which was attributed to Lieutenant Commander Chad Underwood.I may be incorrect, and can't find it as this thread is just getting longer and longer, but I understood the "witnesses" just to be "people who saw the video" as opposed to real-time witnesses. Is that right? If so, what they told Corbell isn't evidence of anything.
The sensor operator is making choices about zoom, focus and direction, has knowledge of surrounding areas and the ability to look at them if they want. Someone watching TV has no control, and no ability to know if what they are watching is live or pre-edited.That's an interesting question. If the sensor operator for the aerostat saw the object real-time only via his IR camera feed (as opposed to with the Mark 1 eyeball), is that operator a witness? I watched the second a/c hit the WTC in real-time on live TV, does that make me a witness?
I've seen similar behaviour, but not exactly that, no.Question: In your experience as a MX-20 operator have you personally ever observed a object switch from white to black and back to white?
As a proper witness, you could testify to provenance and provenience.That's an interesting question. If the sensor operator for the aerostat saw the object real-time only via his IR camera feed (as opposed to with the Mark 1 eyeball), is that operator a witness? I watched the second a/c hit the WTC in real-time on live TV, does that make me a witness?