Search results

Well those sightings are certainly examples of "drones emitting light". If those were "foreign spy drones" then my assumption would make sense: they somehow need the source of the "light" to stay aloft. This could give us an idea of the kind of tech being used. The only other option to explain...

Why would secret spy drones emit light and be so visible? Only logical explanation would if light was a necessary byproduct of their propulsion/power systems. Propellers don't emit light. Jets can be somewhat luminous at night but their range would be even more restricted. Not very probable...

The Navy logs report that they deployed Snoopy Teams. "we go up and figure out what the vessel is and what it's capable of. It's our job to say, 'hey, this is the vessel's country of origin' and we specify what type of vessel, see if there's any weapons topside, or people,"...

Let's say the image exists and is true. If the Navy released a classified image of an enemy drone and said it was a UFO: the enemy would know that they have a huge advantage. The fact they don't know what it is doesn't mean it is an alien craft. They might be looking at advanced enemy tech.

Mick didn't like my previous post. I'll just post some raw data points minus my commentary. Put things into perspective by yourselves and make up your own minds. During the Gulf War (1990s tech) "On average AWACS detected and identified enemy aircraft while they were still over 70 nm from U.S...

This is extremely unlikely (to put it mildly) given there were multiple observers and initial contact was from very high altitudes. These people spend their lives in the air. They know what a bird and a whale look like. If this was a U.S. sub the case would have been closed long ago. This...

Pretty cool. I don't think the right distance values you set as max (100m) in your simulation are realistic. The pilot would have probably passed by the object at way more than 100meters of lateral displacement just to be safe. I think 100m is actually the minimum lateral distance probably. A...

I guess those sensors are pretty accurate after all... wow If the subject of the pic was balloon sized why did the iPhone select a very high shutter speed to avoid motion blur? The scene and accelerometer data are pretty static and the tiny balloon would appear in the scene briefly (above we...

Hmm interesting.. We are seeing .0135 excess force on the X axis and I was assuming it was within a calibration/small movement error. In my testing my device recorded values on the X axis slightly beyond 1g even as I tried to keep the device steady as if taking a picture. Most of the time it...

Interesting point in the EXIF data: it contains accelerometer data. For the image linked here: https://u4m6u3u8.stackpathcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/photo-2-1.jpg We get: AccelerationVector -1.013545817 0.05369000906 0.2268022181 I tested it with my phone. It is consistent with a...

Great simulation. I think it proves that the pilots had to either: - be aware that the object was there and be ready to take the pic at the first pass - be making a second pass on the object to take the pic after seeing it - be holding the phone in their hands for some reason Otherwise the time...

This theory is such a strech Guys you realise how much parallax effect you get with a jet cruising at 500 knots @ 20k feet if the object is not close to the water? I mean: we have been analysing the GO FAST video for months. Look how fast that object appears to be moving there. If the object...

I see. What sources is this theory based off? Do we have proof that this is what actually happens on ATFLIR or is it just an educated guess? Thanks

Great job Vizee. Very nice model. Does the model align with the actual video in terms of amount of rotation observed? Your model seems to predict an almost full 180° rotation in a single continuous movement but that is not what we see. Is the yellow line in your graph below taken from the...

Yes, but this was restricted airspace during active carrier operations, and they were deemed a threat and directed to intercept (but couldn't).

It isn't probable that this was any kind of ordinary plane. Or it would have been easily identified. The whole point of a Carrier Strike Force is to project air domination wherever it goes. If it fails to achieve such a basic task (aircraft identification and intercept) with a conventional...

You mean within the system there are mirrors that "point" the camera without moving the external window? So for example it may stay fixed externally but internally move and track an object making small movements (that would make sense)? I wasn't aware of that. Even so with large movements across...

Yes but it can't "make smaller rolls". The full 180° roll is required given the physical constraints of a 90° swivelling head. Or NO rotation is needed if the head swivels 180°. There is no way of getting past this limit that I am aware of. Do you have any ideas to get past this problem?

FLIR1 shows exactly what I would expect. A rapid full 180° rotation if I'm not mistaken. That is not what gimbal shows. From what we know of the physical structure of the ATFLIR (a head that swivels ~90° mounted on a platform that can rotate 360°. That's also what I see you reproduced in the...

Interesting that I've read that phrase exactly the opposite as you :-) I think the most probable scenario here is that if this was indeed a black project they wouldn't allow the committee to require the DoD to publish a public report on the subject...