David Falch - Blue Angel

BobArtwohl

New Member
In his YouTube video, David Falch claims to debunk Mick West because the FLIR camera can still pick up the details of the F-18. However, in some views, the details of the JET seem to get progressively dimmer as the jet moves from the camera. Mr. Falch does not realize that the brightness of light (visible or infrared) gets less bright with the square of the distance. It is easy to imagine that beyond a certain distance, the details of the jet would not be visible while the heat of the jet's exhaust would still be hot on FLIR. Unfortunately, Mr. Falch does not give information on the distance of the aircraft.

Could one not simulate the effect of distance on the IR imagery of the jet's detail and exhaust seen in this video using software?

This is the link to the entire video:


Source: https://youtu.be/HI6wQB85h0s
 
Mr. Falch does not realize that the brightness of light (visible or infrared) gets less bright with the square of the distance.
David Falch presents himself as an expert in FLIR imagery analysis.

First question: Is there evidence to question his ability or willingness to do an expert analysis?

The above post presents evidence that he does not understand the Inverse Square Law. Or chose to ignore it.

Something else he doesn't understand is luminance.

Luminance indicates the brightness of light emitted from or reflected off a surface.

See: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/jellyfish-ufo-from-tmzs-ufo-revolution.13304/page-19#post-309964

At that time Falch either didn't understand that an aluminized balloon reflects the temperature of the sky when the camera looks down upon it, and what that would mean, or he did understand and didn't include that in his analysis.

His analysis clearly focuses on emission of IR light without taking reflection into account.

Lack of basic knowledge or deliberate omissions so far:
-Inverse Square Law
-Luminance

Can anyone add to this list?
 
Last edited:
Second question:

What does David Falch say about his background in FLIR imagery?

What is his actual background?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Y-CORBELL-GEORGE-KNAPP-CHRISTOPHER-SHARP.html
I don't know anything beyond this story:

An expert on infrared videos, Dave Falch, has seemingly burst that bubble for now.

Falch, known for his in-depth analysis of such footage, demonstrated through an experiment posted on his Twitter feed that latex balloons are not visible when viewed using infrared.

Another former infrared systems operator has claimed the 'jellyfish' might by mylar balloons, but Falch doubts this theory, too, as mylar would likely have a distinct infrared signature.
The story doesn't call him a former infrared systems operator but clearly implies that he his.

Immediate questions.

What is his background? Does his background qualify him as an expert in the analysis of FLIR imagery?
 
Update to second question:

Here he shows four course completion certificates:


-Advance Intermediate Maintenance Training Course -2007
-Maintenance Training Course - 2008
-Service Center Training - 2009
-Laser Safety Officer Training - 2009

This does not show any training in optics or image analysis. So far this does not show any relevant education or experience.

It's important to note that this does not logically exclude the possibility that Falch has a good knowledge of optics or skill in FLIR imagery analysis. So far we have to rely on Falch showing us that he has such knowledge and skill. He can't just baldly claim he's an expert in such things, though.

If it turns out that that he really is a "former infrared systems operator" that is not in itself evidence that he is an expert in optics or FLIR imagery analysis.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Falch does not realize that the brightness of light (visible or infrared) gets less bright with the square of the distance.
I think this issue has come up before, in some context or other. It's a tricky point. The perceived brightness of a point source of light (whether reflected or radiated) does diminish with the square of the distance from the observer, which is why astronomers can estimate the distance of some types of star, known to have the same intrinsic brightness, from their perceived brightness. The angular size of stars, viewed from earth, is so small that they can effectively be treated as point sources. But if the light source has a not-negligible angular size, the perceived brightness of their surface depends on their apparent size as well as their distance. The two factors cancel out, so their perceived brightness does not vary with distance. I'm pretty sure that Mick West once gave a practical demonstration of this using playing cards.
 
I'm pretty sure that Mick West once gave a practical demonstration of this using playing cards.
Post-its

Sunlight, being at the same angle over short distances, solves this, and give a nice illustration.

I put two post-it pads at the same position on two identical chairs at the same angle (right angles to my house), both in identically direct sunlight. So these two pads are emitting exactly the same amount of light. The far pad is 6x the distance of the near pad. Is it 1/36 the brightness?
2022-06-27_11-50-06.jpg

They are the exact same brightness.
2022-06-27_11-52-25.jpg

Illustrating that an area light source does not get darker with distance.
 
Update to first question:

Luminance

From the the Jan 21, 2024 YT video "Jellyfish" UAP analysis!

Mylar balloons or foil balloons have a very low emissivity. Emissivity represents a material’s ability to emit thermal radiation and is an optical property of matter. These balloons are mostly reflective of thermal radiation, like floating mirrors as I call them.

This time he is taking reflectivity into account. He doesn't use the word luminance or explain it. And his writing is unclear.

These balloons are mostly reflective of thermal radiation...

Better:
Aluminized plastic balloons act like mirrors. Most of the IR light that reaches the camera comes from specular (mirror-like) reflections of IR light coming from the surrounding environment.

He still fails to talk about the importance of this. In this case - a black hot IR video - we can expect that the top of aluminized balloons will reflect the sky. The top of the balloons will look white because the luminance of the sky is low.

Question: Did he know about luminance in Dec 3, 2021 when he posted his YT video Three recent FLIR UAP videos: an analysis!

Or did he ignore it, because it was inconvenient?

Or a third possibility that I'm adding just now:
Did he know about luminosity but failed to take it into account because he didn't think about it? Did he not recognize the importance of this issue?

In this case question three is:
How good is Falch at analytical thought? What's his skill level in general?
 
Last edited:
Question four:

Is Falch acting in good faith? Is there evidence of deception? Does he make statements at odds with common knowledge or easily observed facts?


Evidence of deception:

From the YT video - "Jellyfish" UAP analysis!
Cherry Picking.png

There is no narration at this point in the video. This image is meant to show that the UAP object cannot be a bunch of aluminized plastic balloons because it doesn't look like his photo of same. Clearly cherry picking. He has chosen a frame in the video when the UAP appears dark when it usually appears white in the video.


An example of a statement at odds with observable fact:

Source: https://twitter.com/dave_beaty/status/1751612084477898761


It's not a scene auto gain/level- nothing else changes but the object!

This has been proven to be a statement at odds with easily observable fact.

There are many reasons why people might make such contrarian 2+2=5 statements and it's best not to go into a list just now.

There is one thing that is usually behind it: An attempt to establish dominance.

I've run across a simple way of summing up the message: "My denial overrides your intelligence."

It's always a bad sign.
 
It is easy to imagine that beyond a certain distance, the details of the jet would not be visible while the heat of the jet's exhaust would still be hot on FLIR.
With distance, glare plays more of a role: the size of atmospheric glare remains the same or gets larger with distance, which means that the "details" of a jet move into the "glare zone" as the aircraft recedes.
(Glare is the reason we see stars at all—and some not at all.)
-Advance Intermediate Maintenance Training Course -2007
-Maintenance Training Course - 2008
-Service Center Training - 2009
-Laser Safety Officer Training - 2009
I wonder, doing maintenance, what kind of targets and target distances he has experience with, as an operator himself.
 
Update to question 2:
What does David Falch say about his background in FLIR imagery? What is his actual background?

On his Twitter account he calls himself: Depot Level FLIR Tech
I asked Bing Copilot what that means:

“Depot Level FLIR Tech” in the US military context refers to two concepts:
  1. Depot Level: This refers to a level of maintenance in the military where major overhauls or complete rebuilds of parts, assemblies, subassemblies, and end items are performed. It includes the manufacture of parts, modification, testing, and reclamation as required1.
  2. FLIR Tech: FLIR stands for Forward-Looking Infrared. FLIR cameras, typically used on military and civilian aircraft, use a thermographic camera that senses infrared radiation2. These cameras can see heat sources, such as hot engine parts or human body heat, several kilometers away2. Raytheon, a major defense contractor, has delivered a ‘third-generation’ FLIR system to the US Army capable of seeing through smoke, rain, snow, and fog3.
So, “Depot Level FLIR Tech” likely refers to the high-level maintenance and overhaul of Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) technology systems within the US military. This could involve tasks such as repairing, upgrading, or rebuilding FLIR systems.
Learn more
1acqnotes.com2en.wikipedia.org3army-technology.com

If this in fact describes Falch's former job, there's nothing that qualifies him as an expert in optics or FLIR imagery analysis.

Nothing logically excludes Falch from being an informed amateur who can do a good analysis, but he has to show us that he is doing a good analysis.


Question four: Is Falch acting in good faith?

Falch tries to play the expert card and shut down the discussion; portraying himself as the expert and critics as know-nothings.

One example:
Source: https://twitter.com/DaveFalch/status/1752157515817648367


I think he [MW] realizes he gets hits when he and I argue on social media. I've argued with him for many years, usually about FLIR videos, to which he has little or no knowledge of. Same old song and dance.

This is another way of shutting down the discussion through intimidation. Establishing dominance. A fight not an argument. What ever you prefer.
 
Last edited:
Question 1: Is there evidence to question his ability or willingness to do an expert analysis?

Question 3: How good is Falch at analytical thought? What's his skill level in general?

Example: From YT video - "Jellyfish" UAP analysis!

A muddled discussion of optics. Shows poor understanding of optics. Unclear thinking.

Typically, the first thing people think is it must be some kind of dead bug or bird poop on the window. These windows are exposed to a lot of debris and get filthy for sure.

However, the infrared optics see through this debris in the front window and it’s usually not an issue.

Allow me to explain. There is a wide range of focusing for the infrared optics.
Wrong word. Leaving aside the issue of what kind of optical system this really is... He means: The system is capable of adjusting the focal length of the lens by moving lens elements inside the lens barrel.

Aside: This is a catadioptric optical system. A mixture of reflection and refraction. It uses a mirror and lenses. I don't think we should use the terms zoom lens or lens barrel. I know very little about the lenses at all. That's where my knowledge trails off. A man's got to know his limitations.

But there's some way to change the focal length and I would think it's done very much in the same way a zoom lens on a consumer camera does it.

I wonder if it could switch between a number of fixed focal length lenses? Like an old TV camera. Anyone know?

When changing magnification, the focus lens is used to focus the scene at a particular focal length.
By focus lens he probably means the element called the focusing lens. Yes, it adjusts focus. But why is this important? The discussion should be about focal length.

Leaving aside the issue of this being a catadioptric optical system, I think what he's trying to get at is the focal length. The long focal length and how it would affect focus.

Absolute basics
Focal length - How far away does the lens need to be from the film/sensor to form a focused image? It's why telephoto lenses are long and wide angle lenses are short. Affects field of view and magnification. The longer the focal length the higher the magnification and narrower the field of view.

Focus - A clear image, or fuzzy? The focusing lens moves a little bit back or forth inside the lens barrel to get best focus. Most of the focusing has already been done by having the lens at the right distance from the film/sensor.

Focal length and focus are not the same thing. Should not be confused.

Zooming, zoom lens - A zoom lens adjusts the focal length of the lens by physically moving lens elements inside the lens barrel. Changing the focal length does not include moving the focusing lens. (I can see the autofocus changing focus at the same time in a varifocal zoom lens. I wonder if that's what he means. But it wouldn't be relevant.) Focus and focal length should not be confused.



Important: Long lenses - long focal length lenses - telephoto lenses - can't focus at really close distances.


Infrared focal lengths are set far beyond the focal length of the front window.
Wut?
Infrared focal lengths - Probably means: The focal length of the lens. Could he be thinking about the wave length of IR light? Don't know. IR light does focus at a slightly different distance than visible light. But that's true of different colors of visible light. That's what chromatic aberration is all about. And why would it be important?

...focal length of the front window - Do windows have a focal length? He's confused focal length with distance. He means the distance to the window.

Therefore, the infrared optics effectively see through any debris on the window.
infrared optics - Why even mention infrared? We already know it's an IR camera. But the relevant issue is focal length. Not fundamentally different in IR or visible light cameras. I get the idea that he's just slinging around the term because it sounds groovy.

What he's probably trying to say is: With the lens set to this long focal length anything on the window would be so out of focus it would be effectively invisible.

Which is true.
 
Last edited:
I probed Dave, asking if Mylar balloons in a different color or finish, something slightly less reflective than pure chrome, would produce different results and he laughed at me—not even giving an explanation such as “I’ve seen that before as well”.

I think Mylar balloons in a different finish and/or color is a plausible explanation for the differences seen in his video and the jellyfish.
 
The light from something that close would be spread out across the whole sensor. Just grey goo. It would degrade the brightness and contrast.

I've shot through chain link fences. The trick is get the lens right up against the fence. Nothing I could do about color slides, but could adjust contrast and brightness on B&W prints. These days you do it in photoshop.

The same issue comes up with reflector telescopes and the secondary mirror. The secondary is in the way, which confuses people. How can you see through the mirror? You can't; it's just so out of focus you can't see it. But it does degrade the brightness and contrast of the image you see.

Refractors are awesome because they give you bright contrasty images.
 
Last edited:
I probed Dave, asking if Mylar balloons in a different color or finish, something slightly less reflective than pure chrome, would produce different results and he laughed at me—not even giving an explanation such as “I’ve seen that before as well”.
Interesting question, but he's not operating at that level. Just making sweeping statements that suit him at the moment.

I think Mylar balloons in a different finish and/or color is a plausible explanation for the differences seen in his video and the jellyfish.
The dark value (not color!) in this example below is the result of an adjustment to brightness or gain. And it seems to be a purely electronic adjustment to the image. Not an adjustment within the camera. (But I still have questions about that.)

Cherry Picking.png

The brightness was turned down at that moment so the thing looks dark at this moment.

Most of the time it looked white, because the brightness/gain was turned up higher. For the purposes of this thread, it's an example of cherry picking/deception.
 
Interesting question, but he's not operating at that level. Just making sweeping statements that suit him at the moment.


The dark value (not color!) in this example below is the result of an adjustment to brightness or gain. And it seems to be a purely electronic adjustment to the image. Not an adjustment within the camera. (But I still have questions about that.)

Cherry Picking.png

The brightness was turned down at that moment so the thing looks dark at this moment.

Most of the time it looked white, because the brightness/gain was turned up higher. For the purposes of this thread, it's an example of cherry picking/deception.
I think we’re on the same page already, but just for clarity’s sake, I was referring to the color of an actual balloon, rather than a perceived color/dark value seen on FLIR.
 
But there's some way to change the focal length and I would think it's done very much in the same way a zoom lens on a consumer camera does it.

Post #353 depicts a patent from L3 showing the general optical design of their pods, and how the different focal lengths are produced.

I wonder if it could switch between a number of fixed focal length lenses? Like an old TV camera. Anyone know?
From their brochure below (Post #275), there are four discrete fields of view that can be obtained with the thermal imager.

1711555315055.png
 
Last edited:
Back
Top