# DHS "Rubber Duck" Footage

#### Mendel

##### Senior Member.
@flarkey , do you know the field of view of the camera, i.e. how many degrees wide and high it is?

If not, we could probably get it by comparing the images to Google Earth, knowimg the position of the aircraft.

This would give us the angular size of the object (somewhat inaccurately, since the edges may reflect the ground and be hard to spot), and since we have a distance (assuming the "duck" is near where the sight lines cross), that allows us to compute an approximate size.

#### flarkey

##### Senior Member.
Staff member
@flarkey , do you know the field of view of the camera, i.e. how many degrees wide and high it is?

This is a FLIR SYSTEMS camera, and not one that I have ever used, although the data on the screen overlay is pretty standard between the various manufacturers. I don't know the exact model but it shouldn't be too hard to find the field of view from online sources.

#### Easy Muffin

##### Senior Member
Currently trapped in a boring Zoom meeting, help. Trying to work out an FOV on the side.

Put these coords in GE and measured the distance from the reticule to the right edge based on the small road down there. I got something like 85 metres, so roughly 170 metres for the entire screen. That'd correspond to a horizontal FOV of about 1.5°.

#### flarkey

##### Senior Member.
Staff member
@Easy Muffin - I think we need to confirm which Sensor is being used. There are plenty of technical details online...
LMGTFY.

To complicate the matter, the bar at the bottom left (barely visible) seems to show a variable the level of zoom from W(ide) to N(arrow).

#### Easy Muffin

##### Senior Member
@Easy Muffin - I think we need to confirm which Sensor is being used. There are plenty of technical details online...
LMGTFY.

To complicate the matter, the bar at the bottom left (barely visible) seems to show a variable the level of zoom from W(ide) to N(arrow).

Yeah they seem to be using some sort of manual zoom so it's probably going to be difficult to determine how far zoomed in they were at the time.

That's why I tried to use features on the ground instead since we can use them to measure lengths and do some trig to work out the rest. So for example the rubber duck is about 1/96 the width of the entire screen, so if it were on the ground it would be something like 1.8 metres across. The sight lines in the GE KMZ file converge at 60% (roughly speaking) the slant distance to the ground, which means that the object would actually be about 1.1 metres in diameter. Lots of estimates in this of course.

#### Mendel

##### Senior Member.
Put these coords in GE and measured the distance from the reticule to the right edge based on the small road down there. I got something like 85 metres

I count 42 x over 85m, which makes the x about 2m wide on the ground. Eyeballing Mick's 3D reconstruction, the duck is 2/3 of the distance to the ground (and slightly smaller than the x), so roughly 1.2m (4 ft.) wide? Or should I be using a different picture for that?

(Apologies for the duplication, I was painting dots while you sent your post.
)

#### Easy Muffin

##### Senior Member
Ah good, you're in the same ballpark then! Seems like a diameter of 1.3 m +/- 0.3 (4 ft +/- 2) wouldn't be too far off?

I didn't really put much thought into which part of the video to use, I just looked at it and took a screenshot at the first place that had some identifiable things in it besides random vegetation. Chances are you can do a more precise measurement on a different image.

#### jhunsley

##### Member
I pointed out the coordinates and position data of both the aircraft and the target on the screens to ny_uap, the guy who initially released the data on Instagram and YouTube. He doesn't want to acknowledge that the model clearly shows the object is high above the group. He's clinging on to the idea that the target data means the object and not the ground behind hit. He blocked me

#### jarlrmai

##### Senior Member
Also it would have to have been re-encoded to do the redaction, looks like it was done on an Apple
hard to tell though because of the added Black Vault tag, it could have been sent redacted them and then further re-encoded to add The Black Vault tag. Depending on how this was done there could have been a reduction in quality.

Last edited:

#### flarkey

##### Senior Member.
Staff member
From the Black Vault, redacted again and in a slightly different way, seems like an attempt to prevent investigation.
Absolutely agree thatit was done to deter investigation. I think this was a condition of John Greenwald (Mr Black-Vault) being allowed to release it, so don't blame him.

#### jarlrmai

##### Senior Member
Absolutely agree thatit was done to deter investigation. I think this was a condition of John Greenwald (Mr Black-Vault) being allowed to release it, so don't blame him.
You are right I just read that so removed my post, it was redacted by TBV at the request of the original owner.

#### SkepticSteve

##### Member
Dave Falch provides some good comments and demonstrations with his own FLIR pod on why he thinks that the recordings are unlikely to show latex, mylar balloons or a drone. Though, admittingly I am not 100% convinced that a drone can be dismissed.

Last edited:

#### flarkey

##### Senior Member.
Staff member
Dave Falch provides some good comments and demonstrations with his own FLIR pod on why he thinks that the recordings are unlikely to show latex, mylar balloons or a drone. Though, admittingly I am not 100% convinced that a drone can be dismissed.
It's very hard to tell exactly what the object is, because the quality of the imagery is low. It's not too hard, with the metadata presented, to show that the object isn't doing anything unusual. This is because the numbers on the screen are explicit, accurate and exact, unlike the imagery.

If it's not doing anything unusual, then it's not a "genuine UAP" as claimed by the person who shared the video .

#### Rory

##### Senior Member.
Full high Res version of the video available here, but I'm not sure if this version includes the GPS data or is also redacted.

https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/alleged-dhs-rubber-duck-uap-footage-november-23-2019/

Has anyone asked Dave Falch where he got unredacted video from? Or if he has the full length vid and can share it?

Edit: I guess the details are in that link above. NY UAP has the original video (received from an anonymous source) and they shared it with Dave Falch, and also with The Black Vault who made their own redacted version with better quality than the one that's on YouTube.

The Black Vault through a private arrangement, received what was said to be the original files sent over from the anonymous source. There were two files total. Per request, The Black Vault was asked to redact identifying location information / GPS coordinates, along with adding an identifying image to the video. This was done, per that agreement, and the best copy was exported, keeping the original 1920x1080p 30fps quality and exporting at the absolute top bit rate available.
Content from External Source

Last edited:

#### RTM

##### Member
I pointed out the coordinates and position data of both the aircraft and the target on the screens to ny_uap, the guy who initially released the data on Instagram and YouTube. He doesn't want to acknowledge that the model clearly shows the object is high above the group. He's clinging on to the idea that the target data means the object and not the ground behind hit. He blocked me

If some of his tweets before the upload are anything to go by, I don't think objectivity is his strong suit.

#### Ravi

##### Senior Member.
If it was not for the plane bit, I would have sworn that it is filmed in white-hot mode. But who am I.

#### jhunsley

##### Member
Dave Falch provides some good comments and demonstrations with his own FLIR pod on why he thinks that the recordings are unlikely to show latex, mylar balloons or a drone. Though, admittingly I am not 100% convinced that a drone can be dismissed.
Dave Falch claims to be an expert on FLIR cameras but he seems to be biased towards the 'no explanation, therefore must be a space ship' camp, just like Letho and ny_uap. If he's an expert then why doesn't he model the coordinates of the aircraft and target and work out the position and velocity of the object, as Mick West has done. He seems to just be saying that the object is an irregular shape therfore it's not a balloon or drone and therefore has no explanation for what it is. A simple high school level calculation will show its an object floating on the wind and therefore likely a balloon or deflated lantern, or some such item.

#### jhunsley

##### Member
If some of his tweets before the upload are anything to go by, I don't think objectivity is his strong suit.

All the so called Ufologists are biased. They go out of their way to avoid acknowledging Mick West's work.

#### taurusclover21

##### Member
Dave Falch claims to be an expert on FLIR cameras but he seems to be biased towards the 'no explanation, therefore must be a space ship' camp, just like Letho and ny_uap. If he's an expert then why doesn't he model the coordinates of the aircraft and target and work out the position and velocity of the object, as Mick West has done. He seems to just be saying that the object is an irregular shape therfore it's not a balloon or drone and therefore has no explanation for what it is. A simple high school level calculation will show its an object floating on the wind and therefore likely a balloon or deflated lantern, or some such item.
He's not a FLIR camera expert. He was schooled by somebody on youtube over one of his "rubber duck" comments when he was confused about the FLIR allegedly displaying the object's speed.

#### DavidB66

##### Senior Member
This is correct. The co-ords at the top right indicate where the crosshairs are over the ground and they refresh every second or so. The camera just takes the distance between two sets of coords, which are taken one second apart and then does a simple speed = distance / time calculation.
Without asking you to reveal any personal details, could you say in broad terms how you know this? Personal knowledge? Professional training? Studying manuals, patents, etc? If it comes to an 'argument from authority' with Dave Falch, are we on strong ground?

Out of curiosity, do you know how the system obtains or estimates the GPS co-ordinates of distant points on the ground? I can think of several ways it might do it, but some of them would require more sophisticated data than others.

#### Mick West

Staff member
I did a little backyard experiment to demonstrate how a balloon would look like a white blob in black hot thermal footage when viewed from above.

Here's the money shot, a mylar balloon from above, and all you can see is the bright white cold.

#### Mick West

Staff member
Out of curiosity, do you know how the system obtains or estimates the GPS co-ordinates of distant points on the ground? I can think of several ways it might do it, but some of them would require more sophisticated data than others.
I'm pretty sure it does it with a terrain database and the angle of the camera. The GPS of the plane is known, so I think it just calculates the intersection of the camera's view vector, and the ground. I've seen setups that overlay street maps. The small registration error indicates it's coming from the camera vector, not image recognition.

#### flarkey

##### Senior Member.
Staff member
Without asking you to reveal any personal details, could you say in broad terms how you know this? Personal knowledge? Professional training? Studying manuals, patents, etc? If it comes to an 'argument from authority' with Dave Falch, are we on strong ground?

Out of curiosity, do you know how the system obtains or estimates the GPS co-ordinates of distant points on the ground? I can think of several ways it might do it, but some of them would require more sophisticated data than others.
I have a background in electronics and have worked in the defence industry for 21 years on a variety of equipment. For the last 12 years I have worked with airborne reconnaissance and surveillance systems, particularly infra red cameras. I have specific experience in architecting, designing and testing these systems in the lab and in flight trials. I have specific experience with the Wescam MX15 turret, which was used to record the Aguadilla ufo video - and I have commented greatly about it for this reason. The camera used to film Rubber Duck is made by FLIR Systems and is different to the MX15 but the general features are the same. Regarding the "argument from authority"... I don't consider myself an expert, but I do think I am suitably qualified to comment .

Regarding the distant point calculation... The point is calculated using simple trigonometry. Knowing the aircraft location & altitude they take the line of sight direction of azimuth and elevation (or in this case depression) to determine where the line inspects with the earth's surface. Simple systems use a flat earth model, but this system seems to have a DTED (digital terrain elevation data) model so that the intersection is roughly in line with the actual earth's surface.

#### flarkey

##### Senior Member.
Staff member
I'm pretty sure it does it with a terrain database and the angle of the camera. The GPS of the plane is known, so I think it just calculates the intersection of the camera's view vector, and the ground. I've seen setups that overlay street maps. The small registration error indicates it's coming from the camera vector, not image recognition.
Yes @Mick West , it uses Digital Terrain Elevation Data (DTED) to find the elevation for any given lat long. The LRF can be used if a more accurate lat long and altitude is required, but this would be only occasionally. Contrary to some beliefs the LRF isn't continually firing.

#### DavidB66

##### Senior Member
I have a background in electronics and have worked in the defence industry for 21 years on a variety of equipment. For the last 12 years I have worked with airborne reconnaissance and surveillance systems, particularly infra red cameras
...(etc).

Thanks. I wasn't trying to cast doubt on your expertise, just bearing in mind that others may. It's a common problem that the 'other side' (to put it crudely) are very ready to claim superior expertise, but when it comes to details, they tend to retreat behind 'it's classified'!

#### FastIndy

##### New Member
I'm pretty certain that the FOV/ranging reticle information is displayed here:

The full length DHS video has segments displaying what I'll refer to as 0.25N, 0.5N, up to 0.75N, with a corresponding change in the length shown in this box. Above a certain threshold it displays information in tens of feet.

I've plotted a scatter of a few slant ranges and corresponding distances as shown in the red box above. Some enterprising individual could just compare terrain features from earlier in the thread to see exactly what reticle markings correspond with the displayed lengths. From there the frame by frame zoom-in and zoom out sequences can easily be used to establish that information for all zoom levels. I think the variation on the longer distances are just due to stepping in 10's.

This could quite easily be used to further verify the object's size, given the fact that we already know approximate distance to the target from Google Earth and the unredacted footage.

Wide FOV to mid FOV sequence on the NY UAP video here, at 15:55:

#### taurusclover21

##### Member
I have a background in electronics and have worked in the defence industry for 21 years on a variety of equipment. For the last 12 years I have worked with airborne reconnaissance and surveillance systems, particularly infra red cameras. I have specific experience in architecting, designing and testing these systems in the lab and in flight trials. I have specific experience with the Wescam MX15 turret, which was used to record the Aguadilla ufo video - and I have commented greatly about it for this reason. The camera used to film Rubber Duck is made by FLIR Systems and is different to the MX15 but the general features are the same. Regarding the "argument from authority"... I don't consider myself an expert, but I do think I am suitably qualified to comment .

Regarding the distant point calculation... The point is calculated using simple trigonometry. Knowing the aircraft location & altitude they take the line of sight direction of azimuth and elevation (or in this case depression) to determine where the line inspects with the earth's surface. Simple systems use a flat earth model, but this system seems to have a DTED (digital terrain elevation data) model so that the intersection is roughly in line with the actual earth's surface.
So what? But were you an F-16 pilot? ;>)

#### flarkey

##### Senior Member.
Staff member
So what? But were you an F-16 pilot? ;>)
Unfortunately not. I've only managed to bag one fast jet flight, and that was a Hawk.

#### Attachments

• Screenshot_20211008-223132_Chrome.jpg
181.7 KB · Views: 169

#### Mick West

Staff member
Currently trapped in a boring Zoom meeting, help. Trying to work out an FOV on the side.

Put these coords in GE and measured the distance from the reticule to the right edge based on the small road down there. I got something like 85 metres, so roughly 170 metres for the entire screen. That'd correspond to a horizontal FOV of about 1.5°.

I'd picked a few frames earlier

Rough fitting it in GE give a horizontal FOV of 1.21°
The rough distance from left to right is 471 feet. Slant range of 3.6NM, 21874 feet which gives a HFOV of 2*atan(471/2/21874) in degrees = 1.23 degrees

I put the object at about 13,000 feet slant range, 1.2°FOV at that range is 272 feet the duck is VERY roughly 1% of the width of the screen, so about 3 feet wide?

#### pomprocks

##### New Member

It seems like the tire tracks should be useful for estimating the size of the duck. Looking tires are typically about 5 feet apart.

#### Mendel

##### Senior Member.
It seems like the tire tracks should be useful for estimating the size of the duck. Looking tires are typically about 5 feet apart.
And the distance of the "duck" is ~2/3 of the distance to the ground, which confirms the 3-4 ft. range for its size.

#### Ravi

##### Senior Member.
And the distance of the "duck" is ~2/3 of the distance to the ground, which confirms the 3-4 ft. range for its size.

A bundle of balloons size.

#### Easy Muffin

##### Senior Member
Rough fitting it in GE give a horizontal FOV of 1.21°
The rough distance from left to right is 471 feet. Slant range of 3.6NM, 21874 feet which gives a HFOV of 2*atan(471/2/21874) in degrees = 1.23 degrees

I put the object at about 13,000 feet slant range, 1.2°FOV at that range is 272 feet the duck is VERY roughly 1% of the width of the screen, so about 3 feet wide?
My precise FOV was 1.446°, slant range to object 4040 m / 13255 ft. Think we're all zeroing in on something like 3 - 4 ft for object size.

#### Mick West

Staff member
I snagged the sparse ADS-B JSON MLAT data for IRONS12 from FR24, extracted only the raw coordinates for the 40 minutes the UFO is tracked and converted to a KML path. The plane circles 11 times, but only moves (northwest) less than ten miles.

#### Attachments

• convertcsv40-with times.xlsx
11.9 KB · Views: 147
• RubberDuckFR24MLAT-Points.kml
9.5 KB · Views: 130
• IRONS12-FR24-Track-full.json.zip
6.1 KB · Views: 157
Last edited:

#### jhunsley

##### Member
Do we know the wind direction for that day? Ny_uap, the guy who originally released the video posted some info on Instagram about the weather conditions at that location for that date. The average wind speed was 8mph but he didn't get the direction. I asked him if he could get it, so as to rule out if the object was floating on the breeze, as a balloon would, but he blocked me. I guess he's not keen on ruling that possibility out. I wonder why?

#### Rory

##### Senior Member.
Do we know the wind direction for that day? Ny_uap, the guy who originally released the video posted some info on Instagram about the weather conditions at that location for that date. The average wind speed was 8mph but he didn't get the direction.

I don't know where you'd get wind info for an empty bit of desert in Arizona. I searched for Sasabe here and it reverts to Nogales, 36 miles away, which could be completely different.

(Was it around 2am?)

Doesn't seem very helpful. Though I do notice the same page says "maximum wind speed 8mph" for that day in Nogales.

Replies
34
Views
9K
Replies
35
Views
5K
Replies
19
Views
417
Replies
104
Views
15K
Replies
14
Views
7K