Tags:
  1. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    I take it these are measured using weather balloon soundings so can't be measured continuously. Going from 95 to 120 knots over the course of a few hours doesn't seem that surprising.

    It's the huge increase in wind speed from ground level up that surprises me. I guess I missed that phenomenon in Earth Science class.
     
  2. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Some observations with annotated video demonstration... All Gimbal-target rotations start simultaneous with an upward bump of the FOV scene, as if the camera was jolted. The target starts to rotate if and only if there is a FOV bump.



    Most target rotations correspond immediately with roll-axis rotations of the ATFLIR jet (center icon) such that one target rotation immediately follows a roll-axis rotation and a second target rotation is simultaneous with a roll-axis rotation and both stop simultaneously.

    So there are tight correlations between bumps, Gimbal-target rotations and roll-axis rotations of the ATFLIR-mounted jet. All these correlations suggest that Gimbal-target rotations are directly tied to camera events.
     
  3. Tailspin45

    Tailspin45 New Member

    No, not common at FL200 but certainly not unusual. Very common at FL330 and thousands of airliners fly in much higher winds on a daily basis. Your speed through the air is unaffected by wind, just your speed over the ground. Without instruments or time/distance calculation, in the aircraft, you can't tell there is any wind at all.

    Click here to see current global winds at FL340. The site is very interactive, click the hamburger (three lines) bottom left for the menu. 250 hPa is about 34,000 feet, 500 is about 18,000. Blue is calm, white is 250kts

    Winds aloft are reported only four times a day because, in fact, the do not change very fast above 18,000 feet where the flight levels begin. Huge air masses just can't change speed or direction very fast (think F=MA).

    Yes. Even back in the '70s, we used pseudo-random jamming to put moving targets all over the screen, so SAM operator couldn't tell the real one from noise. "Range gate pull off" was another common technique, which fooled AAA radar into thinking the aircraft was well behind where it really was. Today, code-injection can even be used; that sounds sophisticated, but even self-driving car developers worry about it.

    Weather balloons carry a radar reflector (it hangs below the balloon with an instrument package) so they can be tracked by radar and winds aloft can be measured.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    That's very interesting. What about faking apparent velocities on radar ? It's been reported that during the 2014-2015 incidents targets were seen on radar exhibiting hypersonic velocities but I haven't heard of any visual confirmations of those observations. I'm wondering if those radar tracks could have been spoofed by ECM somehow.
     
  5. Tailspin45

    Tailspin45 New Member

    Sure, common technique. But since we haven't seen the radar recordings can't say for sure. And anyway, are we talking airborne radar and if so Hornet's or Hummer's? Or was it a ship's, and if not why not? If there was really something there we should have all kinds of corroborating evidence. Failing that, to claim it was ECM from a UFO is the least plausible explanation.

    Also worth pointing out that there are all kinds of electronic and physical phenomenon that can cause strange radar and IR artifacts. And of course, there are "oops, sorry, didn't mean to do that" such as the time I shut down Las Vegas Approach for a few minutes <blush> during an exercise near NAS Fallon.

    Radar fundamentals and ECM overview. (short PDF) "Generally there are angle deception, range deception, and velocity deception jamming against tracking Radar."
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Gerard

    Gerard Member

    Details have been very sketchy so I'm not sure of the answer to those questions but I think at least some of the observations were made by the new AESA radars in the Hornets.

    As for the radar data itself, I've never seen the military release that, it always seems to be classified. So all we have to go on are the statements of witnesses.

    Why do you say that ? Of course I'm suggesting the "UFO's" were entirely of human origin, either a classified US project testing their tech against these pilots or an adversary such as drones launched from a Russian submarine doing the same.

    What do you think is a more likely explanation for seeing unexplained (ie. not like a known missile launch) hypersonic targets on radar around a carrier group ?
     
  7. Tailspin45

    Tailspin45 New Member

    I meant aliens, but my answer is the same for your hypothetical classified project or Russian (or Chinese?) test: extremely low probability and zero corroborating evidence.

    Instead of making up explanations, why not let the evidence show the path to investigate? Lacking evidence the answer has to be "so far we don't know, let's keep looking."

    Malfunction, misinterpretation, or fake. One of the clips that does sound like real crew chatter seems to me to be a clip that starts just after one guy said to the other, "Weird return on the FLIR, looks like a UFO." And the other crewmember laughs and launches into a fake UFO play-by-play that was intended to give the ready room a good chuckle when they played back the video during the mission debrief.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2019
  8. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Glare rotation in the twin-engine jet is very much distinct from rotation of the jet...

    [​IMG]

    And the dark radial arms that show the rotation in the comparator are just barely visible emanating from the Gimbal target. So, apart from greater degradation of resolution in the Gimbal footage (due to both file copies and distance to the target), there's no big difference between the Gimbal footage and this known case of glare rotation from an ATFLIR camera. So, imo, there is sufficient evidence of glare in the Gimbal footage.

    Not all the time. The ellipticity of the pitch-black region in the comparator changes and sometimes is about the same as the Gimbal target. In contrast, the Gimbal target is dramatically further away, most likely tens of miles, and so would show less variation in shape. The twin-engine comparator was very close to the camera.
     
  9. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Here's a forever-running GIF of the horizon-marker stabilization analysis...

    [​IMG]

    With annotations, then without, ... Stabilizing to the clouds, as I had done before, was less effective at revealing the perfect relationship between bumps and rotations because in holding the clouds stable, the best marker of the bumps, the clouds bumping up, was suppressed. Here, only horizon marker is stabilized, and is held perfectly stable.

    Clearly, all target rotations start with a simultaneous bump-up of the scene, which means with a slight jolt to the camera. So it seems the rotational device is a bit crude, it slightly jolts the camera when initiated. Also, this shows that the big jerk near the end is not exceptional, it's just the largest among several bumps.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here's loops of the start of the main rotation. Things to note:

    Gimbal-5314-PP1.

    • The horizon indicator does not move.
    • The horizon (the clouds) does a little jump.
    • The sky banding that starts of more of less vertical rotates in sync withe the object (the glare)
    • That rotation is most noticeable in the upper left corner, and is hard to see elsewhere, but it's there.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    This I hope is a better demonstration of the camera-bump and target-rotation correlation. To reduce visual overload, I've reduced notations from three words to just 'rotate', and it appears only when the target is rotating. Noticing the bumps is facilitated by a static horizontal line...

    [​IMG]

    Keep your eye on the yellow horizontal line to see the upward bumps and seesaw motions of the scene of clouds. Then notice that the 'rotate' notation marking concurrent target rotation appears exactly as the scene bumps up and seesaws, such that each initiation of the four rotations of the target precisely corresponds to a scene bump.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. jarlrmai

    jarlrmai Member

    Do we understand the purpose of the parallel lines that enclose the target? They change length and move outward, do ?they indicate the status of the target lock? It seems the bumps are either a result of or a cause of lost or less sure lock on the target.
     
  13. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    A likely illusion that has misled some is that the Gimbal target slows down. I devised what I believe is an effective way to show why this happens (as the LOS approaches 0˚, the flight path transitions to flying directly at the target, during which it should appear to slow down). This modeling is a rough draft, and it gives some insight into the big jerk we see at LOS = 0˚, we can see the orientation mechanism has to reverse direction as LOS passes 0˚.



    However, in doing this a problem arises... the clouds in the Gimbal video move from left to right, yet, as this draft video shows, in modeling the screen-data-dictated trajectory we've agreed, it seems the clouds should move in the opposite direction, from right to left. What gives? Rotating the model FOV makes no difference. Am I making a modeling error? Is our deduced trajectory wrong? Or is the target perceptibly moving? In this modeling, I'm assuming, as Mick as concluded, that the target is so far away that its perceptible motion is null, and is further than the cloud bank.
     
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'd always assumed the clouds were further away, as that's the only way it works.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. Agent K

    Agent K Active Member

    The lines show the tracker gate, indicating target acquisition and tracking. It looks like the bumps throw off the tracker a bit, which is good to know. If the bumps are detected by the IMU, the tracker or the auto-alignment ought to compensate for them.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    You're right, you didn't say the clouds were closer. I'd misunderstood. Sorry, my bad! Now it works. :)

    That's actually a cool model confusion to go through, as it makes clear how amazingly we can tease out necessary features of the scene from the given information in the footage.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2019
  17. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Notice on the first bump-rotation instance, the tracker gates do not adjust. So the bumps aren't caused by changes to the gate (the two lines fitted to the target). Also, lock is only lost, and just for an instance, on the last big bump, before that the quivering of the gate is determining the size of the inner gate (which is the tightest fit on the target).
     
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Just repeating this without contrast enhancements, as someone suggested it might introduce "contrast and brightness artifacts" - so rather than argue about what those might be, this demonstrates the banding rotates in the original video.
    Gimbal-Original-Lossless-5313-pp.
     
  19. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Of the four examples (large and small contrast enhanced and large and small original contrast), the banding rotation is most obvious in the small contrast-enhanced version in your quoted content. The smaller version has smoothed/blurred out a lot of distracting noise.
     
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That's somewhat browser dependent. Here's one I've shrunk in Photoshop with the original and contrast enhanced side-by-side


    pp1_Lossless-148.
     
  21. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    An interesting fact is that the clouds do not come to a dead stop when LOS = 0˚, whereas they inevitably do in the modeling I'm working on because my clouds are static. So I guess we can attribute the slight amount of motion when LOS = 0˚ to, at least in part, the wind-blown motion of the clouds.

    I'm see a big difference, via both Firefox and Chrome, between these three smaller versions....

    [​IMG]

    And the far-superior version (superior in the sense of fleshing out the banding rotation) is the one that the forum software is shrinking in the quote.
     
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That's actually using a different contrast method - a "dehaze" in Photoshop's camera raw, applied twice, I think.
     
  23. igoddard

    igoddard Active Member

    Here's a zoom on an updated rough draft, forgot to make visible the top-overlaid screen target and the degree markers, takes so long to render as I'm working with a stack of huge graphics in a 1920x1080 Premiere Pro sequence, nested and then rendered through a 1280x720 sequence, otherwise I can't get it to render correctly. But the right modeling is becoming apparent to explain the slow down...

    [​IMG]
    The speed is 2X the original. The pilot's screen is on the lower right and the real world 'out there' is to the left of it, with the lines of sight from start to finish of the Gimbal footage. A possible comprehension problem of this model is ET believers will say, "Well then the UFO is hovering in place, that's even more extraordinary than slowing down." The answer to that requires elucidating more about very-large distances and the truncation thereof for the convenience of graphical display. One jet trailing another jet 30 miles away sees that jet ahead of it as if it was still.
     
    • Like Like x 1