FLIR Technician Discusses Navy videos and claims to refute Mick's claims

Tomer

Member
I think we may have different views on the burden and/or standard of proof appropriate in case like the Gimbal video. The original claim, by people like TTSA, is that the video shows phenomena not explicable by any known human technology: maybe alien, maybe not alien - but what else could it be?

To rebut this claim it is not necessary to prove definitively that the phenomena to be explained are due to glare (in combination with the rotation of the ATFLIR gimbal), just that it is possible. It isn't even strictly necessary to show that it is highly probable, though the fact that the main rotation of the 'object' coincides with motion of the pod past the 0 degrees point does make it inherently plausible that the rotation of the gimbal is involved. An even stronger argument, amounting almost to proof, would be that other random features of the image, distinct from the main features attributed to glare, rotate in synch with the 'glare'. There would be no earthly (or extraterrestrial) reason for such features to rotate in synch with a distant physical object, whereas if they, like the 'glare', are all artifacts of the camera that is just what we would expect. Many people say that they can see such rotation, and I think I can see it, but I may be deluding myself.

In short, the burden of proof rests on those who claim that the video shows something extraordinary, and the standard of proof is a high one. It is for the advocates of the 'extraordinary' interpretation to show that there is no reasonable alternative. I think they tacitly accept this, because they (including some contributors to this forum) seem very determined to rule the 'rotating glare' theory out.
With respect I think you're just moving the goalposts to make it easier for yourself to score. You set yourself against the most extreme alternative viewpoint, i.e. the video is irrefutable evidence of extraterrestrial technology and count yourself pleased when you're able to introduce some ambiguity to this hugely overambitious statement. Well I'm not.

I'm not interested in the TTSA's extreme claims or the viewpoints of fanboys on /aliens, I'm interested in the question 'what is that thing'. And when the answer to that question is jet engine glare and let's face it, it doesn't look like any of the examples presented, that leaves me feeling that the question remains unanswered, and doubting the credibility of those still clinging to that argument. Does that make sense?
 

markus

Active Member
With respect I think you're just moving the goalposts to make it easier for yourself to score. You set yourself against the most extreme alternative viewpoint, i.e. the video is irrefutable evidence of extraterrestrial technology and count yourself pleased when you're able to introduce some ambiguity to this hugely overambitious statement. Well I'm not.

I'm not interested in the TTSA's extreme claims or the viewpoints of fanboys on /aliens, I'm interested in the question 'what is that thing'. And when the answer to that question is jet engine glare and let's face it, it doesn't look like any of the examples presented, that leaves me feeling that the question remains unanswered, and doubting the credibility of those still clinging to that argument. Does that make sense?
The language you're using "still clinging" is not really consistent with the strength of your only argument "it doesn't look like any of the examples presented". Well, I think it does. What then?
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
With respect I think you're just moving the goalposts to make it easier for yourself to score. You set yourself against the most extreme alternative viewpoint, i.e. the video is irrefutable evidence of extraterrestrial technology and count yourself pleased when you're able to introduce some ambiguity to this hugely overambitious statement. Well I'm not.

I'm not interested in the TTSA's extreme claims or the viewpoints of fanboys on /aliens, I'm interested in the question 'what is that thing'. And when the answer to that question is jet engine glare and let's face it, it doesn't look like any of the examples presented, that leaves me feeling that the question remains unanswered, and doubting the credibility of those still clinging to that argument. Does that make sense?
The answer is we don’t know what it is. There just isn’t enough information in the image to make an identification. It’s likely a saturated, unresolved blob that is just moving smoothly across the sky.

There are some peculiar coincidences like the so-called rotation at the time we might expect a gimbaled optical system to be going through its greatest rotation rate. I find that personally compelling to associate the rotation with the optical system and not the object. In addition to their being some low contrast background features that seem to rotate at the same time.

what I don’t find compelling are eye witnesses accounts of people claiming to see movements that violate known technologies that happen to not be on any video presented. I’d like to see video of those types of movements.

We can put together a list of possibilities based on what we do know and rank them in their probability and plausibility. I’d personally put alien craft near the bottom of the list. I’d need quite a bit more information to really start quantifying anything associated with this encounter.
 

Daniel F

Member
Again, rotating glare is a compelling argument but does anyone have another idea regarding IR signature ? Is there any such known technology that could mess with a targeting pod ? That could cause optical effects such as the pixelated rotation in the sky as well as the actual object. As we know looking trough the IR gives us no real indication of what the object is but is it plausible to spoof an IR signature in some way ? This would obviously have real benefits if possible. To effectively mask or glitch out an enemies targeting pod would be useful.
 

Daniel F

Member
It doesn’t look like a real return. Just looks fake in a strange way. If the object is at the predicted ranges the outline just doesn’t look right. It’s not exhibiting a normal heat signature of something throwing out a lot of energy. It seems like a false reading. The outline is so defined. I just can’t believe that whatever is actually there has such a signature. Strange forgery.
 

Agent K

Senior Member
Again, rotating glare is a compelling argument but does anyone have another idea regarding IR signature ? Is there any such known technology that could mess with a targeting pod ? That could cause optical effects such as the pixelated rotation in the sky as well as the actual object. As we know looking trough the IR gives us no real indication of what the object is but is it plausible to spoof an IR signature in some way ? This would obviously have real benefits if possible. To effectively mask or glitch out an enemies targeting pod would be useful.
This was addressed here
Article:
According to Dr. Xavier Maldague, an electrical engineer and professor at the University Laval whose expertise is in infrared thermography approaches and image processing, it would be challenging to inject false imagery into the F/A-18’s electro-optical sensors. “At the optical level, using a fake scene would be very difficult. Especially because all objects do emit some sort of infrared energy, so difficult to fool. And a dynamic scene would be even worse,” Dr. Maldague told me in an email. “One way to do it would be at the signal level, but of course, you [would] need access to camera wiring or try to scramble the radio link. A simple uniform hot background would be possible, well probably (depending on the distance).”
Optoelectronic engineer and professor of materials engineering at the University of Manchester, Dr. Coskun Kocabas, told me “spoofing” of infrared imaging would have to involve some type of external masking, rather than remotely hacking the system. “There are fake infrared targets that look like real military vehicles on infrared cameras. They do it by locally heating a screen or inflatable balloon. But this is not related to the camera; they mimic the thermal emission of an object,” said Kocabas.

I showed in another thread what a blinding laser directional infrared countermeasure (DIRCM) looks like.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ny...ncounter-with-unknown-object.9333/post-251341
 

Daniel F

Member
This was addressed here
Article:
According to Dr. Xavier Maldague, an electrical engineer and professor at the University Laval whose expertise is in infrared thermography approaches and image processing, it would be challenging to inject false imagery into the F/A-18’s electro-optical sensors. “At the optical level, using a fake scene would be very difficult. Especially because all objects do emit some sort of infrared energy, so difficult to fool. And a dynamic scene would be even worse,” Dr. Maldague told me in an email. “One way to do it would be at the signal level, but of course, you [would] need access to camera wiring or try to scramble the radio link. A simple uniform hot background would be possible, well probably (depending on the distance).”
Optoelectronic engineer and professor of materials engineering at the University of Manchester, Dr. Coskun Kocabas, told me “spoofing” of infrared imaging would have to involve some type of external masking, rather than remotely hacking the system. “There are fake infrared targets that look like real military vehicles on infrared cameras. They do it by locally heating a screen or inflatable balloon. But this is not related to the camera; they mimic the thermal emission of an object,” said Kocabas.

I showed in another thread what a blinding laser directional infrared countermeasure (DIRCM) looks like.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ny...ncounter-with-unknown-object.9333/post-251341
That’s very interesting thanks. Sorry I didn’t see the relevant thread. That laser overloading idea you give is interesting and kind of what I was thinking. Something that, if rotating, would have possible artefacts in periphery/sky.
 

Agent K

Senior Member
Too many of you fall back on this argument that well, it doesn't really resemble any actual example of jet engine glare but jet engine glare is more plausible than aliens so it must be jet engine glare. It's a poor argument.
The conclusion is not "It must be jet engine glare," but, "The best explanation we could come up with is jet engine glare." If you reject it, then suggest a better explanation.
It's like flipping a coin ten times, getting ten heads in a row, and declaring that the coin can't be fair because the probability of ten heads with a fair coin is only 1/1024. But so is the probability of any given sequence of ten flips, so what's special about ten heads? The answer is that ten heads is more likely with a trick coin, so when you reject the fair coin hypothesis you're really weighing it against the trick coin hypothesis, but you may find that an improbable outcome with a common fair coin is more plausible than a probable outcome with a very uncommon trick coin.
 
The hypothesis of the rotating glare is perhaps the one that comes closest to an explanation of the phenomenon.
However, I have found some anomalies that cannot be reconciled.

The first concerns the shape of the object, which evolves during the footage. As you can see at the beginning it has a pear shape. Theoretically, if the object was making a straight trajectory away from the fighter, this should be its lateral shape. So it can be assumed that the final bulge is due to the flare of the exhaust gases, while the initial part should be a part of the fuselage. during the video it is noted that the enlargement slowly moves towards the center of the object's body, assuming the central position towards the end, when this is probably exactly in front of the fighter itself. This would mean the two lateral extensions would not be flares of the central glare but parts of the fuselage and therefore not subject to de-rotation.

The second concerns the bumps. Since there are 5 larger ones throughout the footage, spread out widely, I don't think they're related to de-rotation itself at all. Rather there is a possible correlation with the acquisition of the target and its locking through the two vertical bars.

The last anomaly concerns the rotation itself. The patent specifies that the de-rotation occurs around +/- 3-4°.
Well the mentioned beginning of the rotation happens much earlier, that is around 14 °L.

I would be delighted if you could give me some feedback.​
P.S.
I found this photo interesting. Just to outline the speech ....
41184699101_d3dbacec35_o.jpg
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The outline is so defined.
Look into the processing in the ATFLIR that is applied to make the outline stand out.

Re: your concern to "go against the grain", the forum guidelines explain quite well how constructive argument works, and I think you're doing it.
In short, assume everyone is arguing in good faith, and address the actual points (and not how or why they are being made).
 
Rereading some old posts I found this video posted by Mick himself.

https://www.military.com/video/oper...trikes/f-18-takes-out-insurgents/658386321001

This is a very clear example of gimbal lock derotation. As you can see the rotation of the flares of the glare are due to the normal rotation of the head of the pod until reaching the frontal position it suddenly rotates 180 °.
Evidently this phenomenon does not appear in any way on the GIMBAL video.
 
Last edited:

Itsme

Active Member
Please look at the blue dots and the orange solid line. I get it, it's a little washed out, I don't have the raw data at the moment, but hopefully it's clear enough. The orange line is the expected roll angle for a two-axis pod. The blue dots are the saucer angle calculated using PCA, from Tero2021's video. Do you have an explanation for this near-perfect agreement? It's naturally explained by the glare hypothesis, but the hypothesis that it's an external object that coincidentally matches its orientation to the ATFLIR gimbal mount has a tiny p-value.
overlay.png
I did not just look at it, but I copied the calculations from the python code (rot2.txt) in a spreadsheet, this time for the proper elevation of -2 degrees.
The singularity at the zenith point of the ATFLIR was clear from these calculations: It manifested itself through a division by 0 error in 18 of the 1030 points around t=30, accompanied by a sudden 130 degree jump in the roll angle. I gave the 18 division by 0 points in between this jump a value via linear interpolation (for just these 18 points) to be able to draw a graph.

The resulting curve does not match the object rotation curve very well (I indicated this with the yellow lines; both the top and bottom graph have the same scale). The object seems to rotate in steps and in a more linear fashion.
On top of that, the calculations clearly show the sudden 130 degrees gimbal roll which is not visual in the object rotation but does happen in the gimbal video at around the same time:
1628980038573.png
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The first concerns the shape of the object, which evolves during the footage.
If the IR signature of the object itself is asymmetric (like two jet thrusters), and the glare is asymmetric as well (like scratches on the glass with a major direction), then rotating one against the should change the resultant shape.
 

Tomer

Member
The conclusion is not "It must be jet engine glare," but, "The best explanation we could come up with is jet engine glare." If you reject it, then suggest a better explanation.
It's like flipping a coin ten times, getting ten heads in a row, and declaring that the coin can't be fair because the probability of ten heads with a fair coin is only 1/1024. But so is the probability of any given sequence of ten flips, so what's special about ten heads? The answer is that ten heads is more likely with a trick coin, so when you reject the fair coin hypothesis you're really weighing it against the trick coin hypothesis, but you may find that an improbable outcome with a common fair coin is more plausible than a probable outcome with a very uncommon trick coin.
It's a flawed example, but I do think it highlights some of the issues in your logic.

You don't know what the odds of someone having or not having a trick coin are, sure you can reason that it's probably less likely than a trick coin, but you've got no real basis for that assumption. Suffice to say, if I sat through ten failed coin tosses, I'd ask to see the coin...

Similarly, if you don't have a good explanation for the GIMBAL video, you don't have to accept a bad one. You can consider it 'unidentified' or 'probably unidentified' if that makes you feel better.
 

Daniel F

Member
Look into the processing in the ATFLIR that is applied to make the outline stand out.

Re: your concern to "go against the grain", the forum guidelines explain quite well how constructive argument works, and I think you're doing it.
In short, assume everyone is arguing in good faith, and address the actual points (and not how or why they are being made).
Cheers Mendel. Regarding the outline it seems very pronounced in comparison to other atflir footage. It seems a rather an extreme contrast at its border.
 

Daniel F

Member
Rereading some old posts I found this video posted by Mick himself.

https://www.military.com/video/oper...trikes/f-18-takes-out-insurgents/658386321001

This is a very clear example of gimbal block derotation. As you can see the rotation of the flares of the glare are due to the normal rotation of the head of the pod until reaching the frontal position it suddenly rotates 180 °.
Evidently this phenomenon does not appear in any way on the GIMBAL video.
See those final moments where the people are running about the fire and the glare is very pronounced- I always question whether that particular portion is tv mode rather than IR. Could be wrong but the people look lit on one side by the fire which isn’t how I imagine it would look in white hot IR. Maybe it’s just overloading in IR so not picking up the people properly next to fire
 

Attachments

  • 45A2B1FD-DE07-4095-9993-30FB3698EB17.jpeg
    45A2B1FD-DE07-4095-9993-30FB3698EB17.jpeg
    90.5 KB · Views: 16
  • C0E6DB75-6744-4F0A-8F63-6F0CDD8671D0.jpeg
    C0E6DB75-6744-4F0A-8F63-6F0CDD8671D0.jpeg
    87.1 KB · Views: 18
  • 5BD9746D-5697-4F96-97B9-6F07FC528910.jpeg
    5BD9746D-5697-4F96-97B9-6F07FC528910.jpeg
    71.6 KB · Views: 16
  • B9DEDB21-C865-4E04-982B-AA8311A15AF5.jpeg
    B9DEDB21-C865-4E04-982B-AA8311A15AF5.jpeg
    86.5 KB · Views: 14
See those final moments where the people are running about the fire and the glare is very pronounced- I always question whether that particular portion is tv mode rather than IR. Could be wrong but the people look lit on one side by the fire which isn’t how I imagine it would look in white hot IR. Maybe it’s just overloading in IR so not picking up the people properly next to fire
I believe instead that this is the case. The hottest part is the white one and the rioters have the hottest side facing the flames.
 

Tomer

Member
The answer is we don’t know what it is. There just isn’t enough information in the image to make an identification. It’s likely a saturated, unresolved blob that is just moving smoothly across the sky.

There are some peculiar coincidences like the so-called rotation at the time we might expect a gimbaled optical system to be going through its greatest rotation rate. I find that personally compelling to associate the rotation with the optical system and not the object. In addition to their being some low contrast background features that seem to rotate at the same time.

what I don’t find compelling are eye witnesses accounts of people claiming to see movements that violate known technologies that happen to not be on any video presented. I’d like to see video of those types of movements.

We can put together a list of possibilities based on what we do know and rank them in their probability and plausibility. I’d personally put alien craft near the bottom of the list. I’d need quite a bit more information to really start quantifying anything associated with this encounter.
I agree that we don't know what it is, as stated I don't find the glare hypothesis convincing and it seems I'm not alone in this...so maybe people can stop treating it like it's solved and perhaps suggest alternative hypothesis.

I don't personally think that my views on what is or isn't possible or plausible are that definitive so I would be wary of ranking potential solutions based on that...why are we so reluctant to think it's a craft? Is it impossible that some military might have made this? Is it currently breaking the laws of physics or is it just unusual? There seems to be a lot of focus on the potential rotation, would this be a completely unthinkable manouvre by a drone?
 
I have the impression that the de-rotation has absolutely nothing to do with it.
At this point then I wonder.

But is that rotation really aerodynamically impossible?
 

Daniel F

Member
At 7.50 in this recent video by Lehto, he states that Lue Elizondo spoke to gimbal pilots and that they eyeballed the object and that it rotated. I’ve not heard this anywhere else. It’s an important piece of information if accurate. I’m not on social media so am out the loop but just found that shocking to hear .
Source: https://youtu.be/zYH2uBiY0vE
 

markus

Active Member
I did not just look at it, but I copied the calculations from the python code (rot2.txt) in a spreadsheet, this time for the proper elevation of -2 degrees.
The singularity at the zenith point of the ATFLIR was clear from these calculations: It manifested itself through a division by 0 error in 18 of the 1030 points around t=30, accompanied by a sudden 130 degree jump in the roll angle. I gave the 18 division by 0 points in between this jump a value via linear interpolation (for just these 18 points) to be able to draw a graph.

The resulting curve does not match the object rotation curve very well (I indicated this with the yellow lines; both the top and bottom graph have the same scale). The object seems to rotate in steps and in a more linear fashion.
On top of that, the calculations clearly show the sudden 130 degrees gimbal roll which is not visual in the object rotation but does happen in the gimbal video at around the same time:
1628980038573.png
Your image isn't loading for me but from your description it sounds like something went wrong in the transition to the spreadsheet. Here's what I get simply setting the elevation to -2 degrees:
rot2_el2.png
It's very similar. Definitely no divisions by zero or anything like that, which can't happen with an elevation angle of -2 degrees. A division by 0 only happens when elevation angle and azimuth are both 0 -- that is the gimbal singularity.
 
At 7.50 in this recent video by Lehto, he states that Lue Elizondo spoke to gimbal pilots and that they eyeballed the object and that it rotated. I’ve not heard this anywhere else. It’s an important piece of information if accurate. I’m not on social media so am out the loop but just found that shocking to hear .
Source: https://youtu.be/zYH2uBiY0vE
There are many things said by Ryan Graves that don't actually appear evident in the video, such as the wedge formation or the fact that the object suddenly stops. So it is possible that they actually saw the object rotate with their own eyes. So I repeat.
Is it really so aerodynamically impossible to do it?
 

Daniel F

Member
There are many things said by Ryan Graves that don't actually appear evident in the video, such as the wedge formation or the fact that the object suddenly stops. So it is possible that they actually saw the object rotate with their own eyes. So I repeat.
Is it really so aerodynamically impossible to do it?
Good question. I think its mechanical rotation into the wind ( if that is what is happening ) is odd at the very least. I would lean towards some kind of spoof IR signature but really don’t know. I haven’t heard anyone here mention that claim that the pilots witnessed it rotate. I guess if the object is at the range of the 5 -10 nm predicted, then it would be possible to get a visual. Was always under the impression this was just observed on the monitor.
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
I agree that we don't know what it is, as stated I don't find the glare hypothesis convincing and it seems I'm not alone in this...so maybe people can stop treating it like it's solved and perhaps suggest alternative hypothesis.

I don't personally think that my views on what is or isn't possible or plausible are that definitive so I would be wary of ranking potential solutions based on that...why are we so reluctant to think it's a craft? Is it impossible that some military might have made this? Is it currently breaking the laws of physics or is it just unusual? There seems to be a lot of focus on the potential rotation, would this be a completely unthinkable manouvre by a drone?
It could be a craft. Probably not an alien one. There’s nothing in the video that suggests it is breaking the laws of physics. That only seems to come from eye witness testimony. In principle it could rotate, but why then would people think that is somehow evidence of something extraordinary in and of itself?
 
Good question. I think its mechanical rotation into the wind ( if that is what is happening ) is odd at the very least. I would lean towards some kind of spoof IR signature but really don’t know. I haven’t heard anyone here mention that claim that the pilots witnessed it rotate. I guess if the object is at the range of the 5 -10 nm predicted, then it would be possible to get a visual. Was always under the impression this was just observed on the monitor.
I agree with you.
The question at this point is at what distance the object was and whether it is possible to distinguish its rotation.
I believe that all the distances proposed so far, especially those of Chris Lehto, are completely invented ....
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
To the unbiased observer the left-hand image at 1:45 resembles the GIMBAL signature well enough to keep the glare hypothesis squarely on the table as the likeliest one. Were the images magically switched and the GIMBAL video would feature the left-hand signature but behaving as the GIMBAL object does, we would still hear and read all the same arguments against glare.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr1cfpos6vo
 
To the unbiased observer the left-hand image at 1:45 resembles the GIMBAL signature well enough to keep the glare hypothesis squarely on the table as the likeliest one. Were the images magically switched and the GIMBAL video would feature the left-hand signature but behaving as the GIMBAL object does, we would still hear and read all the same arguments against glare.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr1cfpos6vo
That it is the footprint of the exhaust gases there can be no doubt. That the rotation is due to an optical effect, on the other hand, I have many doubts.
One thing I've always wondered about. Why do you call an IR fingerprint glare? Glare is a phenomenon of the visible spectrum. It has nothing to do with infrared radiation.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
...so maybe people can stop treating it like it's solved and perhaps suggest alternative hypothesis.
most people don't care if it's "solved". it likely will never be solved. an alternative hypothesis isn't going to "solve" it either.

is Elizondo proposing alternative hypotheses since most of the public are not convinced of his hypothesis? no.
I'm confused why you keep complaining that people have different opinions than you.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
I agree that we don't know what it is, as stated I don't find the glare hypothesis convincing and it seems I'm not alone in this...so maybe people can stop treating it like it's solved and perhaps suggest alternative hypothesis.
Those who are satisfied with the "glare rotation as the gimbal ortates the camera" hypothesis aren't likely to do that, so let me toss the ball back int your court for that one.

why are we so reluctant to think it's a craft?
I think it is an aircraft, which may not be within the definition of "craft" you intended. :) I don't think we are seeing the shape of the craft, which I think s hidden in the glare and edge-finding software that define the shape of the glare more sharply. My reasons for thinking that have been developed by folks in threads on this topic here on MetaBunk. If you have a better theory, I'd be interested to hear it. For me, the standard of "proof" will be pretty high if you want to argue that it is something along the lines of aliens, beings from anther dimension, or the like, and fairly high for an "advanced tech beyond what we know the government (or somebody) has got. And in any case, you'll have to make a better case than the one that has been made by Mr. West et al concerning glare and camera rotation. Simply attacking that hypothesis is not going to do it. (Hypotheses can be attacked, which of course is not attacking the people supportng it, I understand that.) And of course convincing me of anything need not be among your top priorities!:D

Is it impossible that some military might have made this?
No, it is likely that one did! Again, not in the sense I think you mean! If you mean, as I ander the impression that you do, that the/a military maybe made something way beyond the tech we know about -- maybe, but I am not seeing evidence of that in the vid, nor in the other leaked Navy vids. The eyewitness accounts describe things that might support such a hypothesis, the videos, in my view, do not -- and I'm frankly getting a little "over" how the UAPs always are claimed to do all sorts of impossble stuff except when the cameras are rolling. It is a consistent enough pattern that I begin to assign significance to it.

Is it currently breaking the laws of physics or is it just unusual?
Doesn't appear to me to be doing so, no. And since not, it does not show me evidence that it is unusual. Maybe it is -- as an example, a glowing hot spaceship from some distant star system would presumably show the same glare, and it would appear to rotate when the camera rotates as easily as would happen with a hot jet aircraft. But I am already sure that jet planes exist and fly through the skies of Earth.

There seems to be a lot of focus on the potential rotation,
Yeah, that's what was claimed as the unusual/impossible maneuver captured in the vid.

would this be a completely unthinkable manouvre by a drone?
I don't know, but of course that is only an issue if the target is assumed to rotate rather than the glare/camera. I am reading with interest the arguemnt being made by those who believe the rotation is not caused by the simultaneous camera rotation. I dont find the arrguments compelling, but as I said, I understand that my finding them compelling is not top of the list of things to worry about for folks!
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
One thing I've always wondered about. Why do you call an IR fingerprint glare? Glare is a phenomenon of the visible spectrum.

So is the light from the exhaust pipes shown in the IR image. Despite designed to display to the observer energy emitted at the atomic level, invisible to the naked eye, IR sensor optics obviously also pick up visible light. Therefore they show glares as do regular sensor optics, and as evidenced by the black blobs.

It has nothing to do with infrared radiation.

Infrared radiation is popularly mistaken for thermal radiation despite being a form of light, namely IR light. Hence the confusion.

Article:
Infrared radiation is popularly known as "heat radiation",[23] but light and electromagnetic waves of any frequency will heat surfaces that absorb them. Infrared light from the Sun accounts for 49%[24] of the heating of Earth, with the rest being caused by visible light that is absorbed then re-radiated at longer wavelengths. Visible light or ultraviolet-emitting lasers can char paper and incandescently hot objects emit visible radiation. Objects at room temperature will emit radiation concentrated mostly in the 8 to 25 μm band, but this is not distinct from the emission of visible light by incandescent objects and ultraviolet by even hotter objects (see black body and Wien's displacement law).[25]


Anyway, my initial argument concerned a slightly different issue and was derived from a supposed 'magical image switch'. It would have resulted in all the same arguments against the shape of the object being a camera artifact (maybe not from you), despite demonstrably an artifact of the camera.
 
Can you elaborate on this? What do you think is different about infrared light with respect to this kind of optical system?
So is the light from the exhaust pipes shown in the IR image. Despite designed to display to the observer energy emitted at the atomic level, invisible to the naked eye, IR sensor optics obviously also pick up visible light. Therefore they show glares as do regular sensor optics, and as evidenced by the black blobs.
Absolutely nothing wrong! It was my curiosity. Not being a native English speaker, I was thinking of a different use of the term.
Since glare is a phenomenon that I can see, I didn't think it was associated with the infrared spectrum.
components-of-electromagnetic-spectrum.png
 
I agree that we don't know what it is, as stated I don't find the glare hypothesis convincing and it seems I'm not alone in this...so maybe people can stop treating it like it's solved and perhaps suggest alternative hypothesis.

I don't personally think that my views on what is or isn't possible or plausible are that definitive so I would be wary of ranking potential solutions based on that...why are we so reluctant to think it's a craft? Is it impossible that some military might have made this? Is it currently breaking the laws of physics or is it just unusual? There seems to be a lot of focus on the potential rotation, would this be a completely unthinkable manouvre by a drone?
I realized that we said the same thing at the same time! Certainly there are many other earthly assumptions besides glare rotation ones that can be considered without feeling like a Bob Lazar fan:) ....
 

Agent K

Senior Member
If it's glare, is it from a single exhaust or a pair of closely spaced exhaust nozzles as in an F-18, since the whole thing rotates instead of two parallel rotations as in the Flanker video?


The width of the Gimbal glare can't be attributed to exhaust from multiple engines as in the Chilean UFO airliner.


The oval shape of the Gimbal glare has to be the PSF for it to rotate with the camera without changing shape, right?
 

Agent K

Senior Member
That’s very interesting thanks. Sorry I didn’t see the relevant thread. That laser overloading idea you give is interesting and kind of what I was thinking. Something that, if rotating, would have possible artefacts in periphery/sky.
Here's how a drone being burned with a high-energy laser looks to Raytheon's MTS targeting pod. This is glare from the hot spot.
1629013228480.png
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j-E2bCOrg8

The four diffraction spikes are probably due to the spider vanes.
1629013886058.png
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QugrRRxirC0

The window is obviously transparent to IR and visible light, since you can see through it.
 

Daniel F

Member
Here's how a drone being burned with a high-energy laser looks to Raytheon's MTS targeting pod. This is glare from the hot spot.
1629013228480.png
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j-E2bCOrg8

The four diffraction spikes are probably due to the spider vanes.
1629013886058.png
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QugrRRxirC0

The window is obviously transparent to IR and visible light, since you can see through it.
Very interesting. I’ve always thought that the rotating pixels in the sky could be from the source if whatever it was, is aiming something at the targeting pod. Some kind of overloading kaleidoscopic artefacts. Thanks for this. If it was some kind of energy aimed back at targeting pod then that’s surely an act of war far greater than jamming the radar ! :)
This line about the pilots saw it rotating throws a brand new spanner in the works for me though. Yes it’s wonky eye witness at distance , but it would push this kind of ir spoofing theory straight back into the long grass again !
 
Top