Kurt (not his real name) claims to be an avionics technician who wishes to remain anonymous. These are selected excerpts, organized by topic, from a longer interview (see second post) Interview performed on Aug 17, 2020 by phone.
[Update Jan 10 2022] I originally wrote Aug 27, but that was the date I exported the mp3 file, the original Skype phone call was Aug 17, 2020]
M = Me, Mick West
K = Kurt
I've separated them out by topic or question, and I've highlighted (in bold) the parts of Kurt's answers that most directly address the question. You can see most of the context here, and full context in the next post.
When reading this, note that this was the first time Kurt had been asked about some of this material, and the discussions were over the phone with no shared video. So there are a few occasions where both of us misunderstand the other slightly or misspeak.
Background Working on Targetting Pods
M: You worked on the ATFLIR system?
K: I was an avionics systems technician for the air force. A big part of that job is the targeting pods.
Seeing Similar Glares
M: Okay, and obviously the reason I want to talk to you is that I made this hypothesis about it being a rotating glare, the Gimbal UFO [video] being a rotating glare, and you seem to agree with me. Now do you have experience of similar glares?
K: Yeah, I do. ... just about every day. One of the jobs in avionics technician is to load and unload these pods from the jet and every time you do that you've got to run up APU, run up the jet, and you've got to ops check [operations check] the pod. So, inevitably, ops check and everything, inevitably part of it is playing with it a little. Why not, it's sitting there. So you're tracking jets in the sky, looking at people in [a distant tall building] in the flight line. So yeah, I've seen identical to that. Countless times.
What Causes the Glare?
M: What contributes to the glare and the shape of the glare
K: In my experience, it's mostly, and I'm no optical expert, I'm not even an engineer that's designing this stuff, I just worked on them, so I get experience with them. In my experience, I see this same thing, on the flight line... So, I know what the cause is, the cause is the pilots and the crew chiefs wiping off that front glass with their sleeve [laughs]
...
M: I was just thinking, I did that video on the different types of glare. Would that anti-glare coating on the front of the pod, that's really to prevent reflection showing up outside the pod? So, like, glinting and things like that [K: Yeah] it wouldn't really affect anything inside of the pod - it's not to stop glare getting through, it's to stop reflections on the outside.
K: So "glinting" is a good word. And again I'm no optical expert. All I know is when I clean the forward section glass properly, those "wings", whatever you want to call them, go away
Rotating Glare Shape
M: Fascinating. And, have you seen things like the rotation, when you track things from left to right?
K: Yeah, I've seen them on Coyotes.
M: What does that mean? What's a coyote?
K: I've literally seen that rotation, the glare, on coyotes.
M: Oh, actual coyotes?
K: Literal coyotes on the mountain, looking up there. Your hypothesis is exactly correct, as soon as you pass zero degrees laterally, those wings, protrusions, they shift.
M: And like in a similar manner, they do like this sudden movement, fairly abrupt, so it's stable for a while and then it does this movement.
K: Well yeah, you got it exactly right, it's with the rotation of the forward section of the pod. The forward section of the pod, which I'm sure you know, is the part that rotates.
M: Yeah, and it's got the two axes of rotation. It can rotate along the forward axis, and then it's kind of the secondary axis, up-down, more or less, but could be in any direction.
K: Righ, so up-down is in the camera itself, inside the pod. The whole forward section rotates, rolls. So, I've seen exactly the same thing on coyotes [...]
I mean they are not that bright, but you can mess with your sensitivity on the CDU, which is part of the ops check. But I've only seen this [rotation] a few times, it only happens when something is directly in front of the jet. But you can see it, the coyote's got protrusions, and it's definitely nowhere near as pronounced, as defined, it doesn't look a gimbal video, but you can tell it's the same thing.
M: I guess you could do similar things with an iPhone, if you smudge the lens enough, it's going to give you that kind of lateral blurring, of vertical blurring, depending on which way you do the smudge.
K: Right, and seeing this on on even airliners leaving from [..] airport as well, so they will actually cross. And looking at jets in the holding pattern, [...] you see the same thing.
Tracking in the Nimitz FLIR1 Video
K: Right... what does he [Underwood] mean by "doesn't lose lock"?
M: Well, he says that it's solidly tracking the object the entire time, but then
K: And then he's referring to when it flies off screen?
M: Yeah, he says at the end that he can tell it has lost lock because the bars ...
K: ... right, it obviously lost lock because the boundary bars back off.
M: but the thing is, the boundary bars back off at other points in the video too.
K: right so that [the bars backing off] is a "signal of confidence" for those pods. So what it's tracking is not like tracking with radar, or infrared, it's not tracking from the pod, it's the pod talking to the CDU, talking to the actual display. It's tracking the pixels on the screen, if that makes sense.
M: Yeah, it's analyzing the video, essentially, and seeing where the bright spot is.
K: Right, it's not like tracking a hot spot in the way a heat seeking missile does, or radar. So those boundary bars are a confidence gauge - ah, I don't know the right word for that - so you can lose them, they can back off every once in a while, even though the computer knows to keep the same speed and heading, whichever way the camera was moving, then it's will gain it's confidence back.
M: Do you have the video there? The Nimitz video, I just wondered if you have a second we could look at it together. Like, you could tell me what is going on in it?
[delay while K gets the video up]
M: There are various points where the bars widen. Does that indicate that it has lost lock, or is it just, what is it?
K: Well, I think the terminology is just a little weird there, because it never had "lock." It's just a visual track.
Gimbal Roll in the Nimitz FLIR1 Video Causing Loss of Tracking
M: Let it go forward until it gets to about 45 seconds.
K: Okay [goes to 45 seconds]
M: At about 49 to 50 seconds there's a clockwise rotation. Do you see that?
K: Yeah.
M: Then if you continue to play from that, after 50 seconds, at 52 seconds the bars widen out, and the object is on the right side, just inside the bars.
K: Right
M: What would you say is going on at that point.
K: So that is, let me back up [the video] here. Oh man, that's blurry. Zero degrees left, one left, two left, three left, okay. So, that is the same thing.
M: The same, the rotation?
K: Yeah, it's the forward section rotating.
M: And what does it mean when the bars widen that much. Has it essentially lost track.
K: So it looks like in this video the camera rotates slightly after it passes zero degrees, which it's perfectly capable of doing. So, when it rotates, there's some movement there, so it's actually just wasn't locked on exactly to it, so had to widen it's boundary bars, and it found it again pretty quick there.
[...]
M: Okay. Have you see the video I did, the "No Sudden Moves" video, which was about this video and a I went through all the movements, and said it seemed like the camera was tracking this object moving left and every time it lost track the camera [Note: I meant to say "object" here, not "camera"]] seemed to continue moving to the left because the camera had stopped moving because it wasn't following the object any more, and then it reacquired lock and caught up with it.
K: [rewatches video] It's kind of too quick, we are looking at something that is four degrees off-center and kindof far away. You don't need the camera to keep tracking, it's probably just sitting still. This is a full, probably more than 190 degree rotation of the camera, so you are going to have some movement of the camera inside. I don't know what it's literally doing inside the computer if it's trying to track, but I don't think you need that at all, it just rotated it and there a little vibration that goes along with that, a lot of mass moving, and where it told itself to look at directly after it had got done rotating, the object wasn't in there, the boundary bars opened up a little bit, widened, found it again, and it just reset. So you don't need the camera to still be moving for this to to still make sense.
M: Yeah, actually I'm thinking the camera stopped moving at that point, for a brief second, then reacquired where it was supposed to be, and moved over.
K: Right
M: It's a little confusing, I think the relative motions of things.
K: A little bit yeah, but this is right after the rotation. So, when the pod knows it's got to rotate, it knows where it is looking and it tells itself to rotate to move the camera in the vertical axis, which is no longer vertical, on the inside of the forward section and the computer tells it exactly where it should be looking, where it left looking, and then the object wasn't quite there, probably just due to vibration of the pod, probably just due to mechanical things, gear teeth not being perfect. It was just slightly outside of it, opened it up, found it again. The camera does stop moving while it's turning and after the turn it just looks where it was looking.
Is the Nimitz Video UFO Just a Plane
K: So, what is this thing, do you have any theories for what this thing is, that we are looking at.
M: I don't know what it is, I think it might just be an out-of-focus plane that's just a very long way, like 40 miles away or something like that.
K: Yeah, that's what it looks like to me. Looks like a plane. Looks like every other plane I've seen.
M: Right at the start, if you go all the way back to the start it's in IR mode and then it's in narrow 2x zoom at about 15 seconds in, and you can see it just looks like a glare. Like a spiky glare.
K: So, you can see it clearest in TV.
M: Yeah, in TV [visible light mode] it just looks kind of like a kind of odd-shaped
K: A plane, it's a plane that's backlit that looks like it's going away from us, at like 35 degrees left, and it's backlit.
M: Yeah, that's what my theory is, in my video "Is the Nimitz UFO just a plane", I have a video on just that topic.
K: Oh do you?
M: Yeah, so it's good to hear you say that.
K: Yeah I've seen that hundreds of times, looking at planes in the holding pattern, that's what it looks like [with FLIR].
M: The pilot who took the video, he says that if it was a plane he would have been able to distinguish the features of the plane in that video.
K: With what? I mean this is the optical quality of a $2.5 million camera, 1.5 degrees field of view with 2x zoom, and you can barely see it with the camera, how would he [see it with his eyes]
M: Yeah, it's clearly very blurry. The outlines of this thing are completely out-of-focus the entire time, so.
K: They are blurry, we are just approaching... remember we are in the equivalent of digital zoom here as well, so that's what makes it blurry, if the camera doesn't have the resolution for it. But to me it looks like exactly what I've seen. Dozens and dozens of times in the morning when the sun is coming up in the east and planes are backlit in the holding pattern.
M: Yeah, so they look black.
K: right, against a bright sky.
M: especially around sunrise.
What does the 99.9 RNG Display mean?
M: Do you know what the 99.9 thing means? The 99.9 RNG.
K: That means he's not tracking..., that means he's not locked on to it with radar.
M: Okay
K: Is it that way the whole video?
M: No, it starts out blank, there's nothing there and at about 33 seconds that pops up and stays there for the rest of the video.
K: Let's see... [watching video]
M: Some people say that's an indication of the radar being jammed.
K: It's definitely not. You get all kind, you know you're... no, it's not the radar being jammed.
M: Good to know.
K: Okay, so he's just doing an optical track on this as well. So he initiated that range in TV, just doing the optical track, it looks like here, so you are not going to get a range in TV, and he's not going to designate it a target obviously. Because I'm sure he knows, it's just a plane, airliner.
M: He says he doesn't know that. You should listen to his interview, it's kind of interesting, he just did it.
K: Yeah I'm not interested, after hearing Fravor, and that other guy.
M: Jeremy Corbell
K: Yeah, Jeremy Corbell
M: Yeah this was Jeremy Corbell interviewing Chad Underwood, the guy who says he took this video.
K: Yeah, he knew exactly what that was. That's why he didn't designate it as a target. It's not a big deal to designate something as a target, you haven't engaged it, it's just giving you a radar range, but, technology 2004 they probably wouldn't know. Nowadays you know you are designated as a target because you are getting tracked with radar. You're getting ranged, you're getting blasted. So those 99.9s just mean null, null reading.
M: Now is it showing up because he's requested it, like he's pressed the button to get the range?
K: So, yeah, in TV mode he did that, just on an optical track.
M: So there was nothing there before, so he presses the range button, and this crops up just ot show him that he can't get a range?
K: Right, well, I mean, it's "invalid".
M: or it's saying there is no range
K: yeah, there is no range, it's not like a bad range. It's not "you could not get a range", it's "there is no range". He just pulled up the display for range.
How Far Away is the Object?
M: So how far away would you think this might be.
K: Oh geez, I don't know, I'll have to... let me think.... I don't known probably
M: It depends on how big it is.
K: Judging from what I've seen, like planes in holding patterns and coming into [the airport], I don't know, probably 45 to 60 miles, 45 miles.
M: Sounds about right.
K: I'm sure you could do the math, well, not really without range, but
M: well, you've got the camera's altitude, 20,000 feet, and you've got a 5 degree, that's a 5 degree upward angle, isn't it?
K: Right, positive [angle].
M: So it's look up at 5 degrees, so, it's a 20,000 feet, so it's it's if the plane is 40 miles aways that put it at about 40,000 feet, so like a bizjet or something like.
K: Yeah! That's what it is. I think you're dead on.
What is the "Aura" of Seemingly Cold Air around the Target?
K: Right well when they are offering no proof, there's nothing, they are not proving anything. They're lying. You know I watched the Joe Rogan with Fravor, and you've got Jeremy Corbell, when you've got him ... I think this was the first video I ever saw of yours of the unsharp mask, and when I see Fravor nodding along to this guy saying that there's a pocket of cool air around this thing, he's a liar. I know that he turns that on and off, I do that in my ops-check. He knows exactly what that is.
M: It looks just like that, it's actually a software thing, something you turn on and off?
K: Yeah. It's just like you said it was, with the police helicopters and the dog, I think was in your video.
M: Well the dog one was one I simulated it on the dog one. All the other ones were real, I simulated it with the unsharp mask filter in Photoshop to show what it would look like.
K: So, that's exactly what it is. [a sharpening Filter]
[Update Jan 10 2022] I originally wrote Aug 27, but that was the date I exported the mp3 file, the original Skype phone call was Aug 17, 2020]
M = Me, Mick West
K = Kurt
I've separated them out by topic or question, and I've highlighted (in bold) the parts of Kurt's answers that most directly address the question. You can see most of the context here, and full context in the next post.
When reading this, note that this was the first time Kurt had been asked about some of this material, and the discussions were over the phone with no shared video. So there are a few occasions where both of us misunderstand the other slightly or misspeak.
Background Working on Targetting Pods
M: You worked on the ATFLIR system?
K: I was an avionics systems technician for the air force. A big part of that job is the targeting pods.
Seeing Similar Glares
M: Okay, and obviously the reason I want to talk to you is that I made this hypothesis about it being a rotating glare, the Gimbal UFO [video] being a rotating glare, and you seem to agree with me. Now do you have experience of similar glares?
K: Yeah, I do. ... just about every day. One of the jobs in avionics technician is to load and unload these pods from the jet and every time you do that you've got to run up APU, run up the jet, and you've got to ops check [operations check] the pod. So, inevitably, ops check and everything, inevitably part of it is playing with it a little. Why not, it's sitting there. So you're tracking jets in the sky, looking at people in [a distant tall building] in the flight line. So yeah, I've seen identical to that. Countless times.
What Causes the Glare?
M: What contributes to the glare and the shape of the glare
K: In my experience, it's mostly, and I'm no optical expert, I'm not even an engineer that's designing this stuff, I just worked on them, so I get experience with them. In my experience, I see this same thing, on the flight line... So, I know what the cause is, the cause is the pilots and the crew chiefs wiping off that front glass with their sleeve [laughs]
...
M: I was just thinking, I did that video on the different types of glare. Would that anti-glare coating on the front of the pod, that's really to prevent reflection showing up outside the pod? So, like, glinting and things like that [K: Yeah] it wouldn't really affect anything inside of the pod - it's not to stop glare getting through, it's to stop reflections on the outside.
K: So "glinting" is a good word. And again I'm no optical expert. All I know is when I clean the forward section glass properly, those "wings", whatever you want to call them, go away
Rotating Glare Shape
M: Fascinating. And, have you seen things like the rotation, when you track things from left to right?
K: Yeah, I've seen them on Coyotes.
M: What does that mean? What's a coyote?
K: I've literally seen that rotation, the glare, on coyotes.
M: Oh, actual coyotes?
K: Literal coyotes on the mountain, looking up there. Your hypothesis is exactly correct, as soon as you pass zero degrees laterally, those wings, protrusions, they shift.
M: And like in a similar manner, they do like this sudden movement, fairly abrupt, so it's stable for a while and then it does this movement.
K: Well yeah, you got it exactly right, it's with the rotation of the forward section of the pod. The forward section of the pod, which I'm sure you know, is the part that rotates.
M: Yeah, and it's got the two axes of rotation. It can rotate along the forward axis, and then it's kind of the secondary axis, up-down, more or less, but could be in any direction.
K: Righ, so up-down is in the camera itself, inside the pod. The whole forward section rotates, rolls. So, I've seen exactly the same thing on coyotes [...]
I mean they are not that bright, but you can mess with your sensitivity on the CDU, which is part of the ops check. But I've only seen this [rotation] a few times, it only happens when something is directly in front of the jet. But you can see it, the coyote's got protrusions, and it's definitely nowhere near as pronounced, as defined, it doesn't look a gimbal video, but you can tell it's the same thing.
M: I guess you could do similar things with an iPhone, if you smudge the lens enough, it's going to give you that kind of lateral blurring, of vertical blurring, depending on which way you do the smudge.
K: Right, and seeing this on on even airliners leaving from [..] airport as well, so they will actually cross. And looking at jets in the holding pattern, [...] you see the same thing.
Tracking in the Nimitz FLIR1 Video
K: Right... what does he [Underwood] mean by "doesn't lose lock"?
M: Well, he says that it's solidly tracking the object the entire time, but then
K: And then he's referring to when it flies off screen?
M: Yeah, he says at the end that he can tell it has lost lock because the bars ...
K: ... right, it obviously lost lock because the boundary bars back off.
M: but the thing is, the boundary bars back off at other points in the video too.
K: right so that [the bars backing off] is a "signal of confidence" for those pods. So what it's tracking is not like tracking with radar, or infrared, it's not tracking from the pod, it's the pod talking to the CDU, talking to the actual display. It's tracking the pixels on the screen, if that makes sense.
M: Yeah, it's analyzing the video, essentially, and seeing where the bright spot is.
K: Right, it's not like tracking a hot spot in the way a heat seeking missile does, or radar. So those boundary bars are a confidence gauge - ah, I don't know the right word for that - so you can lose them, they can back off every once in a while, even though the computer knows to keep the same speed and heading, whichever way the camera was moving, then it's will gain it's confidence back.
M: Do you have the video there? The Nimitz video, I just wondered if you have a second we could look at it together. Like, you could tell me what is going on in it?
[delay while K gets the video up]
M: There are various points where the bars widen. Does that indicate that it has lost lock, or is it just, what is it?
K: Well, I think the terminology is just a little weird there, because it never had "lock." It's just a visual track.
Gimbal Roll in the Nimitz FLIR1 Video Causing Loss of Tracking
M: Let it go forward until it gets to about 45 seconds.
K: Okay [goes to 45 seconds]
M: At about 49 to 50 seconds there's a clockwise rotation. Do you see that?
K: Yeah.
M: Then if you continue to play from that, after 50 seconds, at 52 seconds the bars widen out, and the object is on the right side, just inside the bars.
K: Right
M: What would you say is going on at that point.
K: So that is, let me back up [the video] here. Oh man, that's blurry. Zero degrees left, one left, two left, three left, okay. So, that is the same thing.
M: The same, the rotation?
K: Yeah, it's the forward section rotating.
M: And what does it mean when the bars widen that much. Has it essentially lost track.
K: So it looks like in this video the camera rotates slightly after it passes zero degrees, which it's perfectly capable of doing. So, when it rotates, there's some movement there, so it's actually just wasn't locked on exactly to it, so had to widen it's boundary bars, and it found it again pretty quick there.
[...]
M: Okay. Have you see the video I did, the "No Sudden Moves" video, which was about this video and a I went through all the movements, and said it seemed like the camera was tracking this object moving left and every time it lost track the camera [Note: I meant to say "object" here, not "camera"]] seemed to continue moving to the left because the camera had stopped moving because it wasn't following the object any more, and then it reacquired lock and caught up with it.
K: [rewatches video] It's kind of too quick, we are looking at something that is four degrees off-center and kindof far away. You don't need the camera to keep tracking, it's probably just sitting still. This is a full, probably more than 190 degree rotation of the camera, so you are going to have some movement of the camera inside. I don't know what it's literally doing inside the computer if it's trying to track, but I don't think you need that at all, it just rotated it and there a little vibration that goes along with that, a lot of mass moving, and where it told itself to look at directly after it had got done rotating, the object wasn't in there, the boundary bars opened up a little bit, widened, found it again, and it just reset. So you don't need the camera to still be moving for this to to still make sense.
M: Yeah, actually I'm thinking the camera stopped moving at that point, for a brief second, then reacquired where it was supposed to be, and moved over.
K: Right
M: It's a little confusing, I think the relative motions of things.
K: A little bit yeah, but this is right after the rotation. So, when the pod knows it's got to rotate, it knows where it is looking and it tells itself to rotate to move the camera in the vertical axis, which is no longer vertical, on the inside of the forward section and the computer tells it exactly where it should be looking, where it left looking, and then the object wasn't quite there, probably just due to vibration of the pod, probably just due to mechanical things, gear teeth not being perfect. It was just slightly outside of it, opened it up, found it again. The camera does stop moving while it's turning and after the turn it just looks where it was looking.
Is the Nimitz Video UFO Just a Plane
K: So, what is this thing, do you have any theories for what this thing is, that we are looking at.
M: I don't know what it is, I think it might just be an out-of-focus plane that's just a very long way, like 40 miles away or something like that.
K: Yeah, that's what it looks like to me. Looks like a plane. Looks like every other plane I've seen.
M: Right at the start, if you go all the way back to the start it's in IR mode and then it's in narrow 2x zoom at about 15 seconds in, and you can see it just looks like a glare. Like a spiky glare.
K: So, you can see it clearest in TV.
M: Yeah, in TV [visible light mode] it just looks kind of like a kind of odd-shaped
K: A plane, it's a plane that's backlit that looks like it's going away from us, at like 35 degrees left, and it's backlit.
M: Yeah, that's what my theory is, in my video "Is the Nimitz UFO just a plane", I have a video on just that topic.
K: Oh do you?
M: Yeah, so it's good to hear you say that.
K: Yeah I've seen that hundreds of times, looking at planes in the holding pattern, that's what it looks like [with FLIR].
M: The pilot who took the video, he says that if it was a plane he would have been able to distinguish the features of the plane in that video.
K: With what? I mean this is the optical quality of a $2.5 million camera, 1.5 degrees field of view with 2x zoom, and you can barely see it with the camera, how would he [see it with his eyes]
M: Yeah, it's clearly very blurry. The outlines of this thing are completely out-of-focus the entire time, so.
K: They are blurry, we are just approaching... remember we are in the equivalent of digital zoom here as well, so that's what makes it blurry, if the camera doesn't have the resolution for it. But to me it looks like exactly what I've seen. Dozens and dozens of times in the morning when the sun is coming up in the east and planes are backlit in the holding pattern.
M: Yeah, so they look black.
K: right, against a bright sky.
M: especially around sunrise.
What does the 99.9 RNG Display mean?
M: Do you know what the 99.9 thing means? The 99.9 RNG.
K: That means he's not tracking..., that means he's not locked on to it with radar.
M: Okay
K: Is it that way the whole video?
M: No, it starts out blank, there's nothing there and at about 33 seconds that pops up and stays there for the rest of the video.
K: Let's see... [watching video]
M: Some people say that's an indication of the radar being jammed.
K: It's definitely not. You get all kind, you know you're... no, it's not the radar being jammed.
M: Good to know.
K: Okay, so he's just doing an optical track on this as well. So he initiated that range in TV, just doing the optical track, it looks like here, so you are not going to get a range in TV, and he's not going to designate it a target obviously. Because I'm sure he knows, it's just a plane, airliner.
M: He says he doesn't know that. You should listen to his interview, it's kind of interesting, he just did it.
K: Yeah I'm not interested, after hearing Fravor, and that other guy.
M: Jeremy Corbell
K: Yeah, Jeremy Corbell
M: Yeah this was Jeremy Corbell interviewing Chad Underwood, the guy who says he took this video.
K: Yeah, he knew exactly what that was. That's why he didn't designate it as a target. It's not a big deal to designate something as a target, you haven't engaged it, it's just giving you a radar range, but, technology 2004 they probably wouldn't know. Nowadays you know you are designated as a target because you are getting tracked with radar. You're getting ranged, you're getting blasted. So those 99.9s just mean null, null reading.
M: Now is it showing up because he's requested it, like he's pressed the button to get the range?
K: So, yeah, in TV mode he did that, just on an optical track.
M: So there was nothing there before, so he presses the range button, and this crops up just ot show him that he can't get a range?
K: Right, well, I mean, it's "invalid".
M: or it's saying there is no range
K: yeah, there is no range, it's not like a bad range. It's not "you could not get a range", it's "there is no range". He just pulled up the display for range.
How Far Away is the Object?
M: So how far away would you think this might be.
K: Oh geez, I don't know, I'll have to... let me think.... I don't known probably
M: It depends on how big it is.
K: Judging from what I've seen, like planes in holding patterns and coming into [the airport], I don't know, probably 45 to 60 miles, 45 miles.
M: Sounds about right.
K: I'm sure you could do the math, well, not really without range, but
M: well, you've got the camera's altitude, 20,000 feet, and you've got a 5 degree, that's a 5 degree upward angle, isn't it?
K: Right, positive [angle].
M: So it's look up at 5 degrees, so, it's a 20,000 feet, so it's it's if the plane is 40 miles aways that put it at about 40,000 feet, so like a bizjet or something like.
K: Yeah! That's what it is. I think you're dead on.
What is the "Aura" of Seemingly Cold Air around the Target?
K: Right well when they are offering no proof, there's nothing, they are not proving anything. They're lying. You know I watched the Joe Rogan with Fravor, and you've got Jeremy Corbell, when you've got him ... I think this was the first video I ever saw of yours of the unsharp mask, and when I see Fravor nodding along to this guy saying that there's a pocket of cool air around this thing, he's a liar. I know that he turns that on and off, I do that in my ops-check. He knows exactly what that is.
M: It looks just like that, it's actually a software thing, something you turn on and off?
K: Yeah. It's just like you said it was, with the police helicopters and the dog, I think was in your video.
M: Well the dog one was one I simulated it on the dog one. All the other ones were real, I simulated it with the unsharp mask filter in Photoshop to show what it would look like.
K: So, that's exactly what it is. [a sharpening Filter]
Last edited:
