My first guess is specks of dust on the lens. I think Mick also suggested stuck pixels. The trails & surrounding auras are I think caused by video compression artifacting.
There are a few issues with the water droplet theory. Firstly, water droplets very close to the camera don't tend to resolve into clearly defined shapes when the camera is focused in the distance. On a normal camera (granted this isn't a normal camera but it still produces a 2D image of the world) this would be a very fuzzy transparent smudge without defined edges. The camera would need to focus on it to see it clearly and in that case the scene in the distance would be out of focus. Secondly, at 21000 ft the air temperature is well below freezing - any moisture would freeze almost instantly. Thirdly the aircraft airspeed would cause streaking, any moisture present would unlikely to be a perfectly round drop. Finally, visual artefacts caused by drops of water (if they could or do occur on the FLIR camera) would likely cause all FLIR to be unusable in bad weather. As far as I'm aware this isn't the case, probably due to the other points.This is the object at 17'14" in video two. If you watch this section in slow speed, you can see it deforming in shape, exactly as you'd expect from a blowing drop of water that builds up on the leading edge until it hits a cleaner (or moister) area of the glass and "jumps" ahead irregularly, while the trailing edge is dragged behind until surface tension pulls it back to the main blob. The blob is large enough that those actions take place at many different points along the edge, and the shape keeps changing. Note the bright bit at the bottom of the blob, which corresponds to a brighter section of the background TOP, since the raindrop inverts the image. (Nope, I don't know if that's visible light represented here.)
View attachment 81638
Someone else also mentioned this previously and I think its a good point which may debunk my idea that dust on the lens could be responsible for the small specks. I briefly looked for another example of the specks and quickly found examples in the first video I looked at; the old "collateral murder" video released by wikileaks & recorded in 2007.water droplets very close to the camera don't tend to resolve into clearly defined shapes when the camera is focused in the distance
I'd go with stuck pixels. I think in IR pixels can get stuck and unstuck more often. They should be removed with NUC.I've isolated a small portion of the clip (no violence included) where we can see multiple examples of similar-looking small black specks which move with the camera. Could these also be stuck pixels? Dust on the sensor? Its not my area of expertise
This just popped up in my Facebook feed, and example of "raindrops on the lens"
View attachment 81666
The main problem I have with that theory is seeing how it would be in focus. We don't know what the FOV of the Disc video is, but typically these are narrow - i.e. a telephoto lens. The kayak example is very wide-angle.
The examples of water drops on lenses are all at sea level. The video indicates the platform is an aircraft at 21300 ft. The atmospheric conditions are very different. I mentioned in a previous post about the temperature at this altitude. The average max temperature in Kunar province in Nov is 22 Celsius. Using a simple online calculator the temperature at 21300 ft is suggested to be - 20 Celsius. Regardless of the precision (Kunar is not at sea level) of these calculations the point is it's freezing and very dry at that altitude. Most rain originates below 10000 ft in cumulonimbus and nimbostratus clouds - above its frozen ice crystals. The video clearly shows the cloud layer and there's no evidence of clouds close to the platform. If it's water on the camera where did it come from and if it was liquid how did it not quickly freeze at that altitude?
I'm not an expert on cameras but is it possible there could be some frost present on the lense and due to the heat from the camera system it would cause some kind of condensation?
Granted, the scene behind is of clouds, but is there anything in this that suggests that the distant background actually IS in focus?The camera would need to focus on it to see it clearly and in that case the scene in the distance would be out of focus.
I suppose it's possible. The other factors at such altitude would be the lower air pressure, lower humidity and wind/airspeed speed all of which would tend to promote rapid evaporation. These are all things which may make the water droplet theory slightly problematic. Having said that, I couldn't definitively say if there was a certain situation which could, in theory, allow liquid to be present on the camera, but I think it's unlikely.@PublicStranger beat me to it... I don't know about these things, but maybe warmth from the vehicle caused condensation, or ice crystals to melt. Or maybe it's a stray drop of oil/ lubricant. (No idea if that's plausible or not).
It's a good point. The object is very difficult to see. I don't see any evidence of the camera changing focus to correspond to the fleeting appearance of the object. Although the video is poor quality the clouds are still quite clearly seen and similar to other FLIR videos which are focused on infinity.Granted, the scene behind is of clouds, but is there anything in this that suggests that the distant background actually IS in focus?
View attachment 81674
Oils have a much lower surface tension, and would likely form a thin slick rather than droplets.Or maybe it's a stray drop of oil/ lubricant. (No idea if that's plausible or not).
No idea, really, but it seems water is not transparent to IR:But what do droplets look like on a lens of a IR camera?
https://flir.custhelp.com/app/answe...-measuring-image-accuracy-with-water-dropletsExternal Quote:
How do water droplets on the camera lens affect the image? Do they affect the image as much as on a visible light range camera?
Water droplets are entirely opaque in the thermal IR due to water's high reflectivity. How water affects the image will depend on several factors. Lens focal length and focus position are two of the important considerations, after total percent of coverage. If the lens is focused at infinity, rain or water drops will be more out of focus than if the lens is focused up close. A longer focal length lens will also generally cause the droplets to be more out of focus. If the droplets are sufficiently out of focus (and they should be if the lens is focused at infinity), then water drops on the lens will reduce the image contrast in proportion to the ratio of obscured area to total lens front surface area. In comparison, they would affect a visible light range camera significantly less.
Don't know if this is universally true, but the IR lenses I am familiar with are made of germanium, and you would not want water on that. It would be behind some sort of cover, and the drops would be on that... if germanium is indeed as universal as my very limited experience suggests. (Anybody who knows I'm wrong ... I will not be mad if you blow me outta the water!)But what do droplets look like on a lens of a IR camera?
Would that not depend on what the surface it is on a actualy is? With water, it would depend 9n if the surface was hydrophilic or hydrophobic... don't know what the equivalent phrase is for oil!Oils have a much lower surface tension, and would likely form a thin slick rather than droplets.
Any cover would also have to be IR transmissive, so may also be made of germanium. The ATFLIR used sapphire, as it's tougher.Don't know if this is universally true, but the IR lenses I am familiar with are made of germanium, and you would not want water on that. It would be behind some sort of cover, and the drops would be on that... if germanium is indeed as universal as my very limited experience suggests. (Anybody who knows I'm wrong ... I will not be mad if you blow me outta the water!)
That seems very unlikely. It looks like it was recorded on a Wescam MX, just a few years ago. A fully digital system, and also one that is known to have issues with stuck pixels.Is it possible the video was recorded on an analog system (like nimitz) and the transfer to digital added the noise specs, and then maybe even the object?
Can you clarify which one of these is the IR lens? It looks like some Wescam MX-15 can be configured with multiple IR sensors, both SWIR and MWIR, which may be behind different panes. Do we know the exact model of camera used? I saw Marik von Rennenkampf suggest it's "likely" a Wescam MX-15 but it didn't seem definitive. Does he have an inside line of info to such details that were not made public elsewhere? This could be relevant, as more layers of glass introduces more opportunities for artifacts.Any cover would also have to be IR transmissive, so may also be made of germanium. The ATFLIR used sapphire, as it's tougher.
The OSD looks like a wescam MX, here you can see cameras behind windows. The bottom one is the IR.
View attachment 81689
The camera on the left is probably EO (visible light), and looks like an inch or two behind the glass.
I don't know that we can say anything about whether the object (theoretically in the foreground), or the background are in focus, since this is edited to add sharpening and also processed with some kind of AI upscaling. Video 1 is so low quality that it's hard to say anything about what pixels were really recorded on the camera, vs added via editing or interpolation in software.Granted, the scene behind is of clouds, but is there anything in this that suggests that the distant background actually IS in focus?
View attachment 81674
^I'm still trying to figure a way for a lens flare to move to the right with respect to the "background" as the camera moves to the right and pivots to the left. I don't think I can easily recreate this in my living room. Also need to keep in mind the 'background' is the clouds, not the fixed point on the ground the camera is looking towards, so parallax is contributing some of that apparent motion. In my example the background was the wall, behind the flashlight, which is not analogous to the sun since the clouds are not behind the sun. I will try outside with the actual sun, trying to mimic this sort of path:As you can see when pivoting counterclockwise, the small bright flare/reflection artifact is moving right across the field of view. There is also another reflection artifact above moving in the opposite direction, which is interesting. This is a pretty bright flashlight and I think there are multiple back and forth reflections happening between various panes of glass on the camera.
It also shows at the start the camera is pointing in the direction of the sun, but looking down at a village.
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=https://sitrec.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/1/Cloud Disk/20250618_215935.js
Don't worry, it is just one of the features of these True Believers videos. If there is one thing we all can agree on is that they are all extremely poor in quality and context. Just things True Believers need to make sure before they release videos, to have hem as incomprehensible as possible.I am not quite sure what I'm looking at in that video. I'm a novice at this so it is probably clear and I just don't know how to parse it.
Are you referring to the original videos in post #1 or Mick's video in post #74?I am not quite sure what I'm looking at in that video. I'm a novice at this so it is probably clear and I just don't know how to parse it.
I'm using the target coordinates on screen, in military format.Mick how did you find the point the camera points in the data ?
...and isn't your Sitrec simulation rotating the wrong way in the start ?
Converting the mil coordinates 42S YD 0649 7739 to lat/lon, gives: 35.01809, 71.26316
Setting that as the target and using the CSV track, gives a good match
Yes. What you see in Sitrec is based on the camera simply tracking the target point on the ground as the plane moves along the path. I'm not sure what's missing to make the clouds rotate like that....and isn't your Sitrec simulation rotating the wrong way in the start ?