Andrea Themely, Former Air Force Pilot, Breaks Down UFO Footage

[Mick West]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6aBWssGnng


Unfortunately she largely just repeats the existing narrative - even to the extent of saying the pyramid bokeh video is an actual flying triangle. She also think FLIR1 shot off to the left.

She says GoFast is around 500 mph. I'd like to see her math.

It's unfortunate, as yet again we have another "expert" giving a very superficial analysis that essentially is just repeating what TTSA said years ago, and which I feel has been largely explained. More muddying of the waters.

 

[Ravi]

Yeah, also she claims the go fast was going 500mph based on some "rough math" (paraphrasing). All these pilots seem to forget that "the devil is in the details" in most UAP cases.

 

[jarlrmai]

There's a lot of people jumping on these older videos all of sudden..

 

[FatPhil]

There's a lot of people jumping on these older videos all of sudden..

Indeed. I was about to respond to Mick's post in order to say that rather than "More muddying of the waters.", it's "More chumming of the waters."

In computer security terms, I see this as being very similar to a smurf attack - one piece of misinformation is sent out in a broadcast fashion, and lots of people respond to it, flooding the intended victim's network. Great leverage.

 

[jarlrmai]

I guess, is this level of engagement new/different? At the moment it's is mostly a huge appeal to authority, but what prompts former military service people to jump in feet first repeating the same talking old points but with huge apparent authority.

First we had Fravor/Underwood, then Dietrich now a few years later Lehto specifically called out Mick, now we have Themely parroting Corbel/TTSA. Similar deal for all of them low on reasoning/explanations but high on declarations.

Of course they will likely remain silent on any sort requests to talk or rebuttals from Mick, allowing UFO twitter to use them as a stick and any questions Mick has can be shrugged off with "talk to them."

I still think his pinned tweet should be along the lines of, "A lot pilots disagree with me, lets talk email/DM/YouTube/metabunk." Instead of trying to counter the UFO people on twitter, just continuously ask why the pilots won't talk to him, especially Lehto given his direct call out.

One thing is interesting though, Mick/Metabunk's work is seemingly important to this thing, I can't work out if it's just as anvil to allow UFO people to have a focus point to increase fervour though.

Might it be better if we stopped trying to debunk stuff, maybe not even bother with the next Corbel leak for bit, see what happens (I'm sure we'll be accused of losing/being beaten etc.)

Perhaps we might have a thread for a meta analysis of this whole current wave of Ufology.

 

[MclachlanM]

"Normally, lift is produced when an aircraft increases speed, the air goes over the top of the wing, and the bottom of the wing and meets at the end of the wing at the same time. But because the top of the wing is a different size than the bottom, it's going to create a negative pressure because it is travelling faster and it essentially sucks the wing and the rest of the aircraft into that negative pressure area."

Wow, that explanation was infuriating. This is actually taught in a lot of Uni courses and textbooks as a myth that should be avoided. Here is my course notes from an aerodynamics/fluid dynamics course:



Here is a lecture on some aerodynamics myths, cued up at exactly what Andrea is saying: Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKCK4lJLQHU&t=967s


It only takes a bit of common sense to see that the wright brothers plane which is shown as well as basically all fighter jets have flat or symmetrical aerofoils, according to this theory these would all be terrible designs (maybe the editor noticed this and showed what Andrea was taking about on a symmetrical airfoil aircraft as a joke, although I think it's probably just a worrying lack of fact-checking).

I just don't understand how there are quite a number of "expert" ex-pilots like Themely, Lehto and Fravor coming out, confidently getting basic stuff wildly incorrect and then declaring that aliens are visiting the Earth. Is this them just ignoring what they were taught in order to reach the alien conclusion or does the US navy/air force have a serious issue in terms of teaching the basics?

 

[Candy-O]

Starting at 2:28, she says that a normal fighter jet can be picked up on the FLIR out to 10nm. If she is correct, would that not imply that calculations of the object way off beyond that are moot?

The signature seems pretty solid and non spherical, which to me implies that whatever engine source is giving off that signature, it is not at at the extreme range of the sensor, since I'm guessing that would create a smaller/fainter/more spherically averaged blob of heat. No?

And would not a drone's signature be far less than a jet, also implying that if it were a done, it would need to be very close to show up so clearly?

 

[dimebag2]

500 knots for GoFast is plausible when doing a careful analysis in 3D : https://www.geogebra.org/3d/javwynek

There is no way to reconcile the ranges displayed on the screen (RNG), with the camera angles. This supports the idea that the RNG is not reliable on this video. And the only altitude when the velocity vector of GoFast is aligned with the background (Chris Lehto's argument), is near the surface, which corresponds to a speed of ~500 knots. Maybe I'm wrong, if you are interested and find an error let me know and I'll correct it. Maybe I'm not, and because it took me one day to do this analysis, who knows, maybe people at the DoD did it too ?

 

[jarlrmai]

What speed did you use for the jet?

 

[dimebag2]

380 knots, the results are not very sensitive to it.

 

[JMartJr]

And would not a drone's signature be far less than a jet, also implying that if it were a done, it would need to be very close to show up so clearly?

That might depend on the drone. I do not KNOW that some of these big guys throw out heat comparable to a fighter jet -- but it does not seem unreasonable that they might.

 

[dimebag2]

After correcting my vertical camera angles, the RNG are consistent with the camera angles at Point 1 and 2, and I retrieve your results. A speed of ~60 Knots at ~12000 ft. https://www.geogebra.org/3d/axynssmq
This all makes sense now. Sorry for the wrong analysis above !

Let's assume for some reason the range was underestimated, the maximum speed near the ocean would be ~340 Mph. So I really don't know where the 500 Mph number comes from in the above video.