Discussion in 'UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal' started by Mick West, Dec 16, 2017.
BA was a contractor. DOD owns the material.
What are the chances of that being a distant satellite in the Gimbal video? The "rotating" motions remind me of the way I imagine satellites maneuver themselves when they change their orientation for navigation or observational reasons.
China's Tiangong 1 space station is expected to fall to earth any day now. Could it be that video captured it in the lower altitude phase of it's final death throes?
Zero chance. A satellite, even the ISS, would be invisible at that resolution in IR. It would also rotate about a thousand times slower.
I too have a question regarding the audio.
Firstly I want to fess up to being nothing more than an interested observer here, but seeing as some folks here seem to have true knowledge/experience with this topic, I am curious:
The camera rotation/glass/glare optics explanation is compelling, and I am willing to concede that as a plausible scenario here. My lingering doubt however has to do with the pilot/crew speaking as they witness this event. (I Peter B suggested the audio could have been edited etc, but assuming the audio is authentic...) Would the pilots have been watching this object through the IR Camera live (as we are when we watch this video?) Or is it possible that they were actually seeing the object with the naked eye when making these comments? The obvious implication being that in the former, the pilots are also susceptible to the explanation put forth in this thread, but if the latter, then there is an additional data point that requires some consideration here... (ie: they are seeing the physical object rotate, thus their commentary cannot be explained by the Camera Rotation).
I think it unlikely that an object of this size would be visible at a distance of >10 miles, but as discussed, I don't pretend to be an expert!
Thank you for any thoughts/answers.
It's too small to see rotation with the naked eye. See:
That's what I figured. Thanks Mick, I am sold on your explanation!
What is the chance that this is the camera tracking glare on the lense caused by an external light on the plane? The clouds continually panning left to right seem to indicate the camera is not fixed on an object far off in the distance.
See earlier post.
The clouds moving simply means they are behind the object.
Were they supposedly circling the object on their left side or turning around by banking to the left so they could fly directly at the object which was originally to their right? If it is the former I can see how the clouds would pan left to right like in the video. I thought I read it was the latter though, am I mistaken?
I don't think there is a written description of the motion of the jet. You can only infer it from the video. It's consistent with the jet turning left while the camera is focussed on something that's 15 miles away, with clouds some miles beyond that.
is it possible that these 2 pilots are looking at SA monitors set a different range - magnification? one pilots might be seeing 4 jets engine FLIR and the other the single blur ?
This little clip from the Raytheon video shows the type of rotation I'm talking about. There's an axial rotation of the entire "tube", then a panning rotation using just the "ball". The axial rotation would be corrected for internally, so the glass is essentially rotating in front of the non-rotating camera.
I agree with everybody else that all the pieces of your FLIR pod window glare hypothesis answer the questions of the Gimbal video elegantly. Chapeau, Mr. West!
Now if we can just figure out how we can monetize your debunking expertise, we could beat TTS AAS at their own game!
I'm thinking a Myth Busters type deal on Discovery Science where you and Robert Sheaffer debunk 70 years worth of UFO hooey in bi-weekly episodes.
I'd buy shares in that enterprise! ;¬)
Watching the Raytheon footage it seems possible, or perhaps most likely, that the housing window and camera (and thus camera lens) move together. If the window is panning say left to right, surely that's because the camera is panning left to right. And this may hold for circular rotations as well. In that case the window does not rotate relative to the camera lens directly behind it. However, either way, rotations of the housing window or any lens along the LoS of the 'first camera' could produce a flare that rotates independently of the scene by way of 'second-camera processing'.
Not sure if someone mentioned this already, but when the large glass window is pointing straight forward it must rotate a lot in order to align the side to side motion of the glass with the motion of the object/aircraft. And if you look at the video, the apparent rotation happens when it is pointing approximately straight forward, i.e. the same time you would expect the glass to rotate the most.
I'm not sure you can really say that, as the rotation of the inner camera is somewhat independent of the outer housing. However the outer housing clearly has to rotate at some points. The computer's decision to rotate the outer housing may be based on a number of factors - for example it might try to avoid it when doing fine tracking of a target. So you'd expect to see rotations more around the time of loss of target lock when the system takes the opportunity to move the outer housing so the inner camera has a wider range of motion.
@Mick West Yes, you might be right, it's not clear to me how the inner mechanism works.
Actually, that was me. I'm the loud, hairy American dude over in the badufos comments ;¬) I served in the U.S. Army's 7th Signal Brigade a few years ago. I don't know about the Navy and Air Force. But you'd be seriously reprimanded in the Army if you'd talked on the radio like you were "still back on the block" (as they say in the Army).
There's a certain standard way of communication that I expect to hear from real life U.S. Navy pilots communicating on radio.
There would be the standard, recurring use of "Roger" throughout the comms. Also, I would expect the pilots to use words like, "Bogies", "starboard", "port" in their vocabulary. Things you just don't hear in the everyday civilian conversation.
Professional military people are trained to speak with a certain cadence when communicating over radio. The term "official-sounding" is a good description. They're also trained to speak clearly and to repeat stuff twice or three times in a row, to make sure the other person understood what you said. We've all heard that very distinguishable military-speak I'm talking about.
So it's suspicious to me that all those tell-tale "military-speak" features are absent from the Gimbal video audio. Also suspicious in the Gimbal video dialog is they use the word "drone". If there's one thing I know about the way all military people communicate, they never miss an opportunity to use a code word or an obfuscating acronym for stuff. A real military person would have used, something like "UAV" (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) or maybe "UAS" (Unmanned Aerial System). But not "drone".
So in my opinion either the Gimbal video was overdubbed by civilian voice actors with zero real military experience, or the voices are from newbie "recruits" with absolutely zero comms training and zero experience with military jargon.
Whether they're real Navy pilots fresh outta boot camp or civilian voice actors hired by TTS AAS, either way they're clearly very young and very immature. In my opinion, that might be another clue that would support the Gimbal vid likely being recorded during a training flight.
I wouldn't be surprised if, in DeLonge's official capacity as "award-winning storyteller" for TTS AAS, he's allowed to embellish mundane artifacts to make them more woo-tastic for the sake of a good story. As Paul Weller of The Jam would put it, That's entertainment!"
I don't think they even say "drone". That clip sounds more like "...ing going on bro"
Could be. To be honest, personally I can't make out what is actually being said myself. My comment on the use of "drone" was based on believing these two things from the NYT vid...
Could it be an intercom between the pilot and the weapon systems operator? Maybe that would be less professional sounding?
Sure. Could be. Why not?
In the Raytheon ATFLIR pod video, from about 0:55 to 1:01, there is an animation that shows the outer pod housing rotating completely 180 degrees as it negotiates the limits of it's range of motion.
This seems most likely to occur mostly when the lens is aiming forward, and small rotational adjustments would be made to maintain any slight angular shift away from the previous axial position. (I am not a scientist!)
Another thing I noticed is that the pod aperture (or lens) appears to be elliptical, and I'm wondering if that could explain the roughly elliptical shape of the glare/flare/bloom effect.
I don't think so, it's essentially a window through which both the IR and Visible light cameras are pointed.
?? Im a bit confused; I was always under the impression that that is the case, precisely because of the way they talk (to each other).
I think the theory of the glare of the front window is pretty sound. The optical mechanical mechanism is indeed a gimbal based design, making the image rotate while using the gimbal mechanism. This is usually rectified by using an compensating optical element, or just by rotating the image plane.
Thinking about how the military keeps the IR tech they use 'secret' (ITAR ect), I wonder how much more we can conclude technically? The designs of Raytheon's system we will obviously not find on google.
It would have been helpful if in the video another high brightness item was visible, as then we could have observed if that item also has the same flare effect, and more importantly, IF its (flare) direction is identical to the ufo, and also rotates. Too bad!
Here's a clue that the ATFLIR window is attached to a component called "gimbal housing." This page has this photo
centered directly on the housing window and below it states (I've added bold to key term):
"IBC is producing a beryllium-aluminum cast component for Raytheon [...] The part is a precision cast pitch gimbal housing for the ATFLIR system and is produced from IBC’s proprietary Beralcast® beryllium-aluminum material. Under its current production contract from Raytheon, IBC expects to produce this part over multiple years." source
So rotation of the window may rightfully be said to be rotation of the 'gimbal-camera system'. And so the file name of "Gimbal" for the DoD footage in question might not isolate just the gimbal camera within the housing as the cause but more broadly could also refer to its entire housing component with window. That seems to broaden the case for the window as possible cause of the rotation in question.
The filename having been 'gimbal' is, I suspect, a significant factor. Perhaps the file is a snippet because it was cropped on the artifact and was in a database of known FLIR artifacts where each artifact-example file was named by the cause of that artifact, and they are used to train pilots about screen artifacts that can be confusing. That would explain why Elizondo reportedly got the DoD to approve the release of the footage on the misleading claim that he wanted to train pilots, suggesting that was their intended purpose in the first place.
That was the concise version of my reply to @marrowmonkey. Here is the long-winded version: I've never piloted a military jet. I wasn't there to directly observe the people talking in the video. In the absence of any info saying otherwise, I assumed the audio was representing communication between two pilots in two different planes. But sure (if I'm allowed to speculate), it could be they are in the same plane. I can't think of a reason why they couldn't be.
Does that help?
Regarding the somewhat informal language that is being used by the two voices in the Gimbal clip, I've seen several people (elsewhere) declare the audio must be fake because such language is just not used by professionals. This is simply not the case.
Check out this real audio from a real mission, where emotions are high, and tell me what you think. I think it's fair to say that if the audio in our UFO clip is legit, and the 2 men communicating are genuinely as baffled as they appear, that what they are experiencing could be fairly classed as a "stressful" or "shocking", or at the very least "out of the ordinary" event to them. It's not as serious, of course, as the situation in the audio below, but still.... The words
"Shit", "bummer", "dude", "cool", "homie" and "man", are all used.
Commenting on this informal use of language, Scott Thomas says:
There's an uncanny similarity in this depicted shape (in black outline) of the radar cross section of a Mig-21 jet and the shape of the Gimbal target...
The source says: Computer simulation radar scattering characteristics of Mig-21
Having watched the gimbal video so many times, the robustness of this similarity is hard to believe! There are split seconds in the Gimbal footage where all the spikes on top can be seen including the two angling left and right, but they appear as white 'rays' that made me wonder if they're signs of a jet with dual angled tail fins.
But there isn't as I can quickly perceive an obvious connection with the radar cross-section of this jet and the FLIR signal of a jet. However, there's a lot of closeness here in that both this and the Gimbal footage involve jets and screen targets. So my curiosity is stirred to suspect there might be a common cause to this shape and the Gimbal shape. Perhaps the ATFLIR system incorporates radar data on hard-to-image targets.
Given that is a radar cross-section polar diagram in plan view, and the magnitude of the angular scale, compared to IR( from the rear?) in the video, and that the width of the IR image << 1 degree, I would not get excited.
another well-known conversation would be the leaked by manning so-called "Collateral Murder"-video; granted they are not jet- but helicopter-pilots with "unprofessional" language:
01:32 Fucking prick.
02:36 Just fuckin', once you get on 'em just open 'em up.
03:19 Oops, I'm sorry what was going on?
03:20 God damn it, Kyle.
03:23 All right, hahaha, I hit 'em...
04:31 Oh, yeah, look at those dead bastards.
06:33 Come on, buddy.
10:56 I think we whacked 'em all.
14:11 I didn't want those fuckers to run away and scatter.
32:44 All right, I'm fucking having a brain fart. Where's the man advancement?
35:24 Uh shit, why I do I have AP flashing on there?
35:47 We're not even going to watch this fucking shit?
I created this video on the Gimbal footage, presenting the case that has been unfolding here:
The John Lear discussion was getting overly speculative, and has been split to:
As you stated it is very confusing that many media outlets confuse the Gimbal footage and the Nimitz sighting. Another example is this article from The Fresno Bee which headlines the Gimbal video but the article text is exclusively about the 2004 Nimitz incident. It is further confusing because the aircraft in both cases are (allegedly) F/A-18 Super Hornets:
People have been mentally conditioned to equate "unidentified" with "alien". The strength of this conditioning can be seen in the recent SpaceX launch where many believed it was an alien vehicle: https://www.designboom.com/wp-conte...falcon-9-rocket-timelapse-designboom-1800.jpg
Many headlines reported on people fearing an "alien invasion" from the SpaceX launch: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017...es-dramatic-show-in-sky-over-los-angeles.html
It is with that same mentality that most of the articles on the Gimbal and 2004 Nimitz incidents were written.
With the ubiquitous proliferation of high-resolution imaging devices, if any of those objects were alien UFOs they would eventually be imaged at higher resolution to show detailed surface area. They would not perpetually remain blurry, fuzzy blobs, whether shot from ground level or fighter planes.
The Gimbal and Nimitz "aliens" were actually lucky they happened by just when the F-14 with its electro-optical TCS had been retired. It was capable of much higher resolution at longer distances than the F-18's ATFLIR: http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-EO-Systems.html
But nowadays even this consumer Nikon P900 camera can show great detail of high-flying jet aircraft:
Since millions of such cameras are made each year, eventually someone would image an alien UFO showing insignias, scuff marks or rivet heads. It would look something like this CGI fake, but would be real: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mh5w6LL/0/O/i-mh5w6LL.jpg
Alas, we never see authenticated instances of those. This year, 2.53 billion people will own a smart phone, and the global production is about 1.5 billion per year. The world is blanketed with imaging devices capable of 4k video and 12 megapixel stills, yet these objects remain perpetually just out of reach: as fuzzy and blurry as when Farmer Trent used his ancient Kodak camera to photograph flying saucers which were joy riding above his pasture in 1950.
That's assuming they have no technology in place which makes them automatically invisible/blurry when photographed. A whole other rabbit hole, granted, but yet one which is consistent with decades of patterns of UFO reports involving UFO's allegedly causing batteries to die, car engines come to a halt (and then spontaneously re-start), missiles to "shut down", and other demonstrations of the phenomena's ability to affect technology from a distance to render it ineffective. Are our militaries working on exactly the same sorts of technology? Of course.
The conflation seems intractable. The main rebuttal to my video (in its comments and on reddit /r/UFOs/) is conflating the Gimbal and Nimitz cases, even though that's the first thing I address in the video. That's what comments to my earlier video taught me, that conflation with the Nimitz case is so endemic that's the #1 issue to address.
The way TTSA delivered the information to media plus a lack of vetting (or even sorting out the packet of info received) by the media is assuredly the cause of conflation. Of the two clips, the Gimbal video is far more interesting, and so if you assume both are from the same case, it's the obvious choice to show alongside pilot Fravor.
Yes, and we see that conflation in the headline, "Are UFOs Real?" We know what they mean, but technically that's a really stupid statement that conflates UFO with ETs. Any flying object we can't identify is a real unidentified flying object, hence a real UFO. But that says nothing about it being extraterrestrial.
Omg! I just did a news search for that headline and this is just some of the returns...
Of course the meaning of words (or acronyms) is plastic, so in saying that usage is 'stupid' perhaps I'm being a bit of a grammar Nazi.
Curious that some of the most cool looking UFO photos are from the 50s or 60s (I'm not close to an expert on UFO history, so I might be wrong, but in my cursory look at the issue that's a strong impression I get) in terms of UFOs appearing close and in focus. So ya, there are orders of magnitude more cameras nowadays, and yet if you view photos collected by UFO hunters, it would seem there's even a decrease in impressive photos.
You're right. I think in large part its been due to the fact that in the early days we had people like Billy Meier, using actual physical models of flying saucers. The result, when done properly, is a brilliant optical illusion that fooled many, and funnily enough still works today, just as many staple magicians illusions are as old as the hills. More recently people have gotten lazy, using CG and doing it badly. One notable modern exception is Antonio Urzi, who hoaxed some wonderful "close-up" shots of very sharp, well focused flying saucers. They were all just buttons sitting on a horizontal window and he was filming from underneath. The illusion is not as flexible as Meier's method, but it still looks pretty cool. He may even still be active to this day.. I'm not sure. Here's one of his saucers below
The object is definitely moving as the pilot describes, right? In an interview with BBC's Rhod Sharp, Elizondo says the object simultaneously decelerates to a dead stop and performs the rotation:
Separate names with a comma.