Tags:
  1. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2019
  2. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    How is that even giving rough relative temperatures then, since 0-700 C probably encompasses a large chunk of the temperature range you would see in the world ?

    Also what is the reason for this, I thought the range of IR radiation they look at was supposed to provide temperature information.
     
  3. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    The video was processed to enhance contrast for the operator, not to provide calibrated temperature readings.
     
  4. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    So you're saying the sensor is capable of providing better temperature information but the video processing discards it ?

    That would seem counterproductive. I would think temperature profiles would be very useful for target identification.

    EDIT: I guess that's why the Raytheon engineers said they'd need to see the raw data to better analyze the Nimitz video, but I've never heard of that data getting saved and even if it were I'm sure the public would never see it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2019
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That's a moot point. Video does not contain temperature information, it only shows rough relative temperatures. It also clips, so any temperature above a certain value will appear as solid black (assuming black hot). There's just no information in this video that tells you the actual temperature.

    I suspect duplicitous editing might have been used here. 700°C is the temperature of the exhaust gasses, so he might have been answering a question about that.
     
  6. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    Your response confuses me. What are you referring to here ?
     
  7. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Here's a WaPo article from 2012 that points to the possible existence of a fleet of drones that might not be identified by ATC for pilots to thereby instantly identify....

    @ https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...149a8c-1949-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html
    and http://archive.is/aPnRH

    While I can imagine people saying that's a conspiracy theory, well, at least it's a lot more probable than a conspiracy originating on Alpha Centuri.
     
  8. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    There's a level of imagery analysis where you actually want to disregard verbal statements. Verbal statements about events and mechanical records of events are distinct modes of record and ought be analyzed along different tracks.

    There's certainly reason in a full investigation to analyze mechanical and verbal records together. But the mechanical record is likely to be more reliable as human observation may be more prone to error. Anyone who believes the Gimbal target is an ET aircraft has to assume the, "It's a drone bro," statement was an error, and that it ought to be weeded out of the analysis. So there you go. A mechanical record needs to also be analyzed in isolation to verbal statements, and most of the discourse here has been in that vein of the inquiry, focused on listening to the footage, not the pilots.
     
  9. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    A drone swarm would consist of small drones like Perdix or target drones, not big ones.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2019
  10. TheoryQED

    TheoryQED New Member

    Thanks, I understand. I just don't think we can ignore the [allegedly]smaller objects seen on radar (and visible in the alleged longer video) because I doubt that the radar and video can both malfunction simultaneously. But I understand that until we have the longer video, we can totally disregard the witnesses of, and the existence of, said video. And that we can also ignore portions of the audio from the actual event talking about what was on their radar display at the time of recording. (Even though I disagree with all of that)

    Anyway, let's talk about the video. So is Dave Falch a FLIR camera expert with similar equipment? Or a relative novice with no expertise and fundamentally different equipment? In this video I think that Falch was misconstrued as being an expert who wanted to prove the glare hypothesis. Mick West says, "Dave has been looking into this for a while, trying to duplicate the effect using FLIR equipment very similar to the that used in the Gimbal video."

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr1cfpos6vo&feature=youtu.be&t=57
    (1:00)

    However, this FLIR expert does not agree with the jet exhaust/glare rotation hypothesis. Here is an interview in which he says, "It doesn't look like an engine to me. It's much too clear and crisp to be an engine exhaust. There's the absence of any type of wings, any type of propulsion system, any rotors, anything like that. And just the way that it turns to the left and it doesn't vary its heat signature, its original shape, just the way that it rotates like that- I'm thinking it's very coarse... it's coarsely rotating. It doesn't look natural like a plane would bank or roll, that kind of thing. So I can only give you an opinion, but from what I've seen it looks very odd and atypical of what I normally see in the everyday sky. ... To me the object looks crisp. I've put out some videos that show an F-18, trainer jet, stuff like that flying in the sky. And you can see, even at a great distance, that it's a jet." Source-

    Source: https://youtu.be/58aIq74Xtv0?t=654
    (10:52)

    I realize he admitted that he is not an expert with military grade equipment, and there could also be a difference in clarity between military and consumer level cameras. However, I don't think this completely discounts his opinion that the object is in focus, appears "clear and crisp" and looks "very unnatural" while rotating. A DSLR camera that is out of focus looks just as blurry as my old iPhone camera when it's equally out of focus. The Gimbal object would need to be severely out of focus to create a blob shape, correct? But then it wouldn't be "clear and crisp" without the engine flares or inconsistent heat variation and spiking that are normally visible with IR videos of exhausts. So my point is that he can't be cited (referenced and used) as an expert with similar equipment when he is misrepresented or insinuated to be in agreement with the exhaust/glare hypothesis, and ALSO be discounted as having no expertise and using completely different equipment when he makes it very clear that he does not agree with the out-of-focus exhaust glare hypothesis.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
  11. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Mick doesn't say anything like that in his video. Which is why you couldn't quote him saying anything like that.
     
  12. TheoryQED

    TheoryQED New Member

    He insinuates that Dave Falch is a FLIR expert who agrees with the glare/rotation hypothesis and supplied footage to help support it. Saying, "Dave has been looking into this for a while, trying to duplicate the effect using FLIR equipment very similar to the that used in the Gimbal video."

    When I say "cite" I mean specifically "using his footage" and insinuating agreement with the glare hypothesis. I should have used the word "referenced"
     
  13. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    No. He doesn't. at all.

    Conspiracy theorists try to duplicate effects too, to prove effects cant be duplicated. Good Debunkers also try to duplicate effects to prove effects can't be duplicated.

    Mick does not insinuate any intention from Dave. and certainly doesn't imply Dave agrees with his engine analysis.

    End of discussion.
     
  14. TheoryQED

    TheoryQED New Member

    Ok I see. Thank you for making that important clarification and for shutting down my incorrect paraphrasing so completely. I sincerely apologize for my impressions of the video and also for my incorrect usage of the word "cite" when I really meant "referenced his footage"

    So what isn't subjective is that the F-4 phantom footage supplied by Fave Falch and used by Mick West in his video is out of focus and therefore blurry and the shape is distorted into a blob. But I guess the rebuttal will be that Dave Falch is not an expert in military FLIR so he might not know if the Gimbal video is out of focus or not? I just think that a FLIR camera expert would be able to tell if a camera is focused or severely out of focus, but maybe I'm wrong.
     
  15. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    all the blobs look the same to me. Other members would have to comment on your focus or out-of-focus observations.
     
  16. TheoryQED

    TheoryQED New Member

    I was asked by Mick West to reach out to Dave Falch directly, so I did and here is his direct quote about the Gimbal video-

     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yeah, he stopped talking to me. I was quite happy to continue communication.

    Dave never showed what defocussed clouds would look like, as there were none in his videos. He said the focus adjustment was, as I remember, a "nudge".

    He says it does not look like a jet exhaust, despite it looking almost exactly like the jet exhaust in his own video.
     
  18. Hi guys,

    Like I showed/demonstrated earlier in this thread, we see at times a similar glare in the Flir-1 video. Reason why I superimposed both videos (Gimbal and Flir-1) for my demonstration.

    That being said and if my demonstration/comparison could be considered as unambiguous evidence that we are seeing a glare in the Gimbal video and a similar glare at times in the Flir-1 video, glares are just glares. In other words, a glare and/or a heat signature (without a veiling glare) are not like fingerprints. A sky lantern can look exactly like a helicopter heat signature once the fuselage/outline is not visible anymore. You'll see a spherical blob of heat in both cases.

    I can show/prove it if asked.

    What I am trying to say is that if two glares or two heat signatures look exactly the same, this does not mean anything other than there's a heat source radiating heat in the FoV. Confirmation bias are never too far out...

    Cheers,
    Chris
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2019 at 1:15 AM
  19. TheoryQED

    TheoryQED New Member

    Interesting, so if we had a video of a jet exhaust with clouds behind it and it was going in and out of focus would that help?

    And Falch's point about them looking different is more about being in/out of focus and the heat variations or engine spiking where the F4 video moves slightly around the edges, but the Gimbal video doesn't seem to vary in shape or intensity at all.
     
  20. Now let me show you an example

    In the MWIR, the glare (imo) really looks like what we see at times in the Flir-1 video and in the Gimbal video as well:
    Metabunk 2019-09-12 06-12-06.
    Source: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/124f/0ac4ea7f03fa5f9e9d0864075082deefe616.pdf

    Yes it its an aircraft, so the confirmation bias in this situation is to claim: this is the glare/heat signature of an airplane, therefore, the Gimbal video shows an airplane...wish life was so simple too...but it isn't.


    Cheers,
    Chris
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2019 at 6:12 AM
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    If it was a similar distance, with simular lighting and glare, yes.

    Have you watched it recently? It has quite significant changes in shape, especially as it rotates.

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCt837R2Sbs

    Metabunk 2019-09-12 06-18-39. Metabunk 2019-09-12 06-16-55. Metabunk 2019-09-12 06-17-09.
     
  22. TheoryQED

    TheoryQED New Member

    Ok I asked Falch to try to get a shot like that, but it may take a while to capture.

    Yes I have and the craft certainly does change shape over the course of the video. But this could be caused by the rotation of the craft and/or the result of the F-18 viewing it from different angles, and the outer border does not seem to be out of focus or show pulsating or heat spiking from the engine like the blurry F4 phantom footage. Do you have any plans to recreate the "Gimbal need not be moving" gif, or can you please let me know which program you used to create that so I can try to play around with it? I still think that even if a plane were moving directly away from the camera, we would be able to detect horizontal movement at about halfway around the semi-circle made by the F-18.
     
  23. Hi everyone,

    Mick or anyone here who could help out, have you guys figured out why the de-rotation in the Flir-1 video does not "affect" the target the same way (does not rotate as much if it does slightly rotate at times) it did in the Gimbal video?

    You guys probably noticed that the de-rotation caused a slight break-lock of the auto-tracking system in the Gimbal video and a "bigger/longer" one in the Flir-1 video.

    Flir-1:
    Source: https://imgur.com/a/KsyeXdA



    Cheers,
    Chris
     
  24. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    I wouldn't expect it to be identical. The elevation angles were different, the videos were captured 11 years apart so the camera may not be identical, etc.
     
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    In addition to Agent K's points, I think the shape of the Flir1 probably reflects the underlying geometry of the object (plane) much more than the Gimbal video, which is dominated by the glare.

    Compare with the Chilean UF case,
    [​IMG]
    Note here the shape is determined by largely featureless blobs centered on the engines.

    [​IMG]
     
  26. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    Right, I was addressing the break-lock, not the rotation of the glare. By the time the Flir1 video has gimbal lock, the target is heading to the left and maybe towards the camera, so there's no glare.