Nice work Mick. I think the issue with the Flightradar24 data for IRONS21 is that it's MLAT data, not ADSB which is, by definition, much less accurate.
I don't know where you'd get wind info for an empty bit of desert in Arizona.
Looks like the lines of sight converge on one point 31.515832°N -111.439852°E at an alt of 2524m
10 miles in 40 minutes is 15 mph (13 knots), so the duck's speed would be less than that.I snagged the sparse ADS-B JSON 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.
Where did he source that?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.
Looks like an ok match, 135° is exactly Southeast, and 10 knots is less than 13 knots (and the wind speed may have changed a little during those 3 hours).Here is the sounding data from a weather balloon launched 3 hrs after the event and 50 Miles North.
There also no reason not to release the unredacted version given the flight is on FR24.Does anyone think they hid the coordinates on purpose? It's not as if there was a great reason to do so - and with them there it's very easy to see that it wasn't travelling anywhere near the claimed "90-200mph".
Like this? Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/q4uvks/rubber_duck_video_images_to_coordinates/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I find a number of these circular reservoirs in the area between Vamori and San Miguel, the general area of the "ball of yarn" flight track. I have not yet found any along other parts of the flight track .
This one is a decent match, but not definitively so to my eye.
This (coincidentally mildly duck shaped) water feature:
From a few minutes earlier ought to be easier to match, I have not found it yet but since it's not about me and my personal glory I toss it out therefor anybody else who can spot it. If we could find it, and identify the circular lake wth confidence, the time and distance between them would give us a rough idea of speed of the object.
Just read that on Lehto's channel:So it appears that our friend @davefalch has deleted his Twitter account, and also his analysis of the Rubber Duck video from YouTube (his other videos remain). He had previously posted an un-redacted version of the RubberDuck video on YouTube but he quickly deleted that too. Hmmm.
Unfortunately Dave Falch had to remove his YouTube and Twitter accounts as of 12 Oct 2021. He "was advised to reformat his YouTube channel." Hopefully, he can still come on the show. We won't have access to his footage but he can still comment as a FLIR expert.
Dave Falch is a contributor to SCU, who are (rumour has it) are investing Rubber Duck as a genuine UAP with a large report to follow (as per Aguadilla). My guess is that his unredacted video and subsequent analysis goes against what SCU have 'found', but hey I've always been a bit of a conspiracy theorist.
SCU would not have him remove ALL his FLIR videos. The only thing that really makes sense is his employer not being happy with him using company equipment to make UFO videos.Dave Falch is a contributor to SCU, who are (rumour has it) are investing Rubber Duck as a genuine UAP with a large report to follow (as per Aguadilla). My guess is that his unredacted video and subsequent analysis goes against what SCU have 'found', but hey I've always been a bit of a conspiracy theorist.
Agreed. With his latest videos I was loving the explanations of the systems and some new thermal footage, but I knew it was flirting with the edge of proprietary or ITAR-controlled information. The federal government takes ITAR and deemed exports very, very seriously. As an individual, you can get whacked with a $1M fine per export, with the opportunity to visit fun and exciting new prison locations in addition to that.SCU would not have him remove ALL his FLIR videos. The only thing that really makes sense is his employer not being happy with him using company equipment to make UFO videos.
I don't want to drag this conversation off too far into the weeds about ITAR, but I'll provide a little more detail since the systems that we are concerned with most definitely utilize designs and information that fall under the purview of ITAR. Everywhere I say "export" I'm referring to a transfer of information or technology to either an outside foreign nation or a foreign national living inside the United States. This also doesn't cover any proprietary/NDA agreements which would certainly also apply here and cause further restrictions.The obvious solution to that would have been to configure the Youtube videos to be restricted to US viewing, and let Youtube worry about the rest?
The full Rubber Duck Video has just been released to YouTube with the full screen metadata visible.
Can anyone download this ... ?
compare:The wind data is compatible with the idea that the duck is wind-driven.
If it has a propulsion system, it doesn't show a lot of speed.
A wind-blown balloon (or trash bag) is not natural, and it has no propulsion.The results of this analysis support the conclusion that the object cannot be explained as any known natural phenomenon or by any known technology used for aeronautical propulsion.
If their speed determination is flawed, the analysis collapses.
They assume the object is circling with the aircraft for their Appendix A analysis, which means they assume propulsion going into the analysis, which makes the resulting conclusion of the object having propulsion circular.
Again, as per their Aguadilla analysis, they have completely ignored the parallax effect.They assume the object is circling with the aircraft for their Appendix A analysis, which means they assume propulsion going into the analysis, which makes the resulting conclusion of the object having propulsion circular.
ironically, someone on their team was aware of itAgain, as per their Aguadilla analysis, they have completely ignored the parallax effect.
From Appendix A-4 (where the picture in my previous post is from):
... motion parallax along with the trajectory of the object with respect to the plane may produce a false appearance of high velocity.
Their options are
Yeah, I'd have thought they would have considered a Linear Trajectory hypothesis, even if they proceeded to reject it. But no - not considered at all. Weird.Their options are
• short circular trajectory
None of these is consistent with "wind-blown object", which all of their observations except for the Appendix A analysis supports; but the Appendix A fails to consider it.
It's hard to believe that this omission is not intentional.
Again, as per their Aguadilla analysis, they have completely ignored the parallax effect.
it would be great if you could have a look at the PDF as wellDo they assume, measure, deduce/calculate the height of the object? With mundane assumptions, parallax and height are proxies for each other, they might be dealing with parallax without calling it that.
Possibly, but all we know for sure is that the 'duck' is somewhere on a line between those two points. If we know th distance then we can work out exactly where the duck is. Unfortunatley we dont know the distance aircraf-to-duck.I wonder if they are confusing the coordinates for where the camera is pointing on the ground with coordinates of the "duck." Which I guess is another way of saying they forgot about the parallax, but with numbers and math and stuff!
Incredibly weird, as it seems by far the most obvious hypothesis, and the one that best fits the data. They seem to start off assuming the object is moving parallel to the plane:Yeah, I'd have thought they would have considered a Linear Trajectory hypothesis, even if they proceeded to reject it. But no - not considered at all. Weird.
(emphasis mine)It is at first glance difficult to determine the speed of the object as both the object is moving as well as the plane and the pointing angles of the camera, as the camera operator manually tracks the object. After some consideration, if we imagine that the object is stationary then it would move off the screen as the plane moves to the left. Since the object stays approximately stationary on the screen, with the plane falling behind slowly or moving ahead faster, as the camera operator tries to keep the object centered, we can reduce the object’s velocity Vo(t) to its vector components of Vto tangential velocity parallel to the plane (this is what is projected on the camera’s screen) and Vtn the normal velocity to the plane that add up to form Vo(t), the object’s velocity, as long as the camera operator keeps the object approximately locked to the screen. This gives a velocity estimate of object if it stays on the screen to within about + 7.09% standard deviation
The plane is NOT "circling a location on the ground", it's describing a spiral that moves to the North. It's essentially circling a slowly moving object. So by far the simplest explanation is that it's circling the object, which itself is slowly moving north.We know from the meta data that the plane is circling a location on the ground as previously shown in Figure A8 and since it is keeping the object centered on the screen, the object is also circling a location on the ground. As a result, we know that both the plane and object are circling the same location on the ground, approximately but the object’s distance from the plane is unknown so its tangential velocity is not known exactly.