Search results

Why do you think I don't?

@Mick West all excellent points. I think the blurred image (of an F-15?) is quite indicative of what we should see it this was a blurry jet fighter at a normal range. Longer ranges disqualify a fighter. UPDATED V3 Recap of the data we have confirmed: - this things moves horizontally 12° (Mick...

I don't think they understand what IR is... they seem to think it isn't "light" :p. But hey, they do have a lot of cool equipment!

Hey all! I've been annoying everyone already and I didn't even introduce myself! I am a management engineer and entrepreneur from Milan, Italy. I am an aerospace and flight sim enthusiast and have been researching the recent UFO hoopla as a quarantine hobby. I spent my youth practicing naval...

The only thing we know about object size is the apparent angular size. We can use that to calculate size at various ranges (as I have done above https://www.metabunk.org/threads/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage-flir1.9190/post-239013). We know the range of ATFLIR is 40nm so we should...

I don't know yet what this video shows but I don't think it's an aircraft as the evidence is inconsistent with that explanation. The apparent size and blurriness disqualifies an ordinary aircraft at any range.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1243&v=Ncppqq41XRI&feature=emb_logo at 1h0.7min Tim Talks about what the release by the Pentagon "means" for such a bureaucratic machine and why they would be unable to "lie" to the american public without breaking several federal laws. Highly...

Witnesses say no other data is still available and no longer versions of the video still exist today. New information is coming out every day. Are we afraid to debunk the conclusions reached by others? Also, I wasn't here so I might have missed some items (I apologise if I am repeating past...

This must be outside of the U.S. government. Unless someone is going rogue which would be even crazier. I agree with The Drive that the most probable cause is an adversary snooping on the training ranges. Probably Russia given it's the Atlantic. "So no, as we expected, there isn't any proof...

Strange? That's insane not strange. Why would the DoD release the videos and publicise this if it was an internal test of any kind by any branch under the control of the DoD? Makes no sense at all. Are we saying there is a rogue Defence unit/department that acts outside of the control of the DoD?

Except probably NOT by the US armed forces? Or at least not the NAVY. Cross branch miscommunication? The reports have been released by the DoD however in a unified manner. Why would they attract attention to a classified program? It makes no sense at all. This is all really really strange. Is...

The plot thickens... fascinating. What the hell is going on here? The first report clearly states "aircraft" and "wing span". The others are not so clear in their descriptions. This is extremely fishy. Is this a black project by a US armed branch? Seems unlikely here or they would't be...

Slow your horses. The most probable explanation here is: there is some earthly/mundane explanation that we still haven't proposed. Let's keep looking. Aircrafts and aliens are not the only possibilies. The are two extremes I think. There are infinite other possibilities in between (balloons...

Yes since we are trying to fit "a aircraft in a round peg" :) As I have said it's an extreme assumption given the sensor characteristics, range, and image shown and requires the malfunction of another system (the radar) and the nullification of witness accounts. Doesn't really fit that well as...

Looks at how many pixels are occupied by the lock lines. This is a very low res video. How much of that loss of focus is due to the video itself? We could use the blurry lines as an estimation of this maybe? The left bar is 5 pixels wide. How many should it really be? 1 or 2? I don't see why...

Are you sure that's how it works? I have not considered this in my calculations above so everything would need to be doubled. EDIT My bad. I did use 0.35 as well in my calculations. (time to sleep) Yes. That's exactly what they are saying. "like a ping pong ball bouncing inside a glass"...

We have demonstrated the size the object would have to have at that distance. It's 40 meters at 40nm and the longer you go the bigger it gets. No afterburner is big enough to cover the whole airframe in visible light. You posted a nice pic of an F-14 with afterburners on seen from the back...

Yes and I'm rewatching with the new info in mind. A couple of questions for Mick: - you say the field of view is 0.35° for NFOV. That's actually half of the NFOV of 0.7°. Am I missing something? The traverse time you indicate would be half of what you calculated. - When discussing the "rifle...

Appendix K refers to the calculations regarding the final "acceleration". Appendix J refer to the "rifle shot" seen around 71 seconds in the video (I had never even noticed). Except that's not how planes look in TV mode. Why isn't it visible? Also, an aircraft's skin exposed to sub zero...

Impossible. The NAVY forgot they had a Prowler in the air? Why no radar tracking? It should be clear as day. Also: why is it so bright on IR if it is coming towards us? More probably it would be going away from us and we are seeing the engine plume if this is an aircraft. But it isn't an...