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

Ulrich

New Member
Still, I don't find the fit to be very strong. The object rotates in small intermittent `bursts' and its rotation rate decreases while the gimbal keeps rotating fast. It's rotation rate is also slower than that of the gimbal:

Look at it from a different angle: Suppose the object is a UAP that wants to evade the F18. In that case its evasive maneuvers would become more violent when the F18 points its nose at it.

But I'm basically done now discussing this topic. My mind is made up, given the evidence presented so far: Not a glare.
Others are of course entitled to their own opinion. It does not matter much for the `unidentified' status of the object.

Pls go on discussing that topic. You are an important part of the diversity of opinion here. And your arguments and questions sound partially plausible.

Personaly, I think the glare-theory is the best conceivable mundane explanation here. And Mick did a good job, demonstrating these mechanism.

But there are still so many questions. The evidences for glare are still not satisfying. Also because of the overall picture. The case is not debunked. Perhaps it will never be.
 
Last edited:

JMartJr

Senior Member
The problem is that, at this point, the theory that the black shape is a rotating object has been pretty much experimentally refuted. I don't think anybody ever said the pilots saw the thing with their naked eye, but if they did, that statement must be viewed in the context of us having the video available which provides convincing evidence that the rotating black shape is not a physical object, since it matches the expected gimbal rotation rotation very closely. The 'glare' hypothesis explains this naturally, while the 'object' hypothesis demands it to be a coincidence (and you can estimate how likely that coincidence is). Maybe the object that causes the glare is also rotating, but we're not seeing any clear evidence of that on the video. If the witnesses saw it rotate, that could be it, or they might have imagined it. For context, the field of view NAR 2x mode is a little smaller than the full moon:

moon.png

The Grimaldi crater on the left-hand side is about the same size as the black shape. It's pretty much a speck; you might be able to tell that it's rotating if you have really good vision, but you also might easily convince yourself it's rotating even if it's not. Chances are though, Lehto just got confused with the various things that have been said.
A bit more context: if you hold an American aspirin tablet at arm's length, it is about the same angular size as the moon. Save Markus's clever image above, and shrink it down to the size of an aspirin and set your screen out at arm's length. When I do that, I can barely see the Gimbal target as a dot, there is no way I could see if it rotated by naked eye. (Of course, Navy pilots probably have sharper eyes than I have -- on the other hand, the target object, if it is indeed hidden in IR glare, may be much smaller than it is in the image, so maybe that evens out, more or less.) I'd be very unlikely to spot it just somewhere in the sky, unless it was emitting a lot of light. If I was trying to make out what it was, I would not be looking at it naked-eye, since it is too far away to see what it is other than a featureless speck. I'd be looking at the screen, with magnification and data on display. I'd learn more that way. And that's where I'd be able to see this rotation, whatever caused it.

The other way to learn more would be to fly towards it and get closer, which they presumably would have done as they completed their turn and were flying towards the target. They'd be able to see it better and better, as they got closer. But the video does not show that part, the video we have just shows the potentially mysterious bit, but cuts before the bit where the mystery might be resolved by getting a closer look at the target. But what's life without preserving a bit of mystery, eh?
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
The problem is that, at this point, the theory that the black shape is a rotating object has been pretty much experimentally refuted. I don't think anybody ever said the pilots saw the thing with their naked eye, but if they did, that statement must be viewed in the context of us having the video available which provides convincing evidence that the rotating black shape is not a physical object, since it matches the expected gimbal rotation rotation very closely. The 'glare' hypothesis explains this naturally, while the 'object' hypothesis demands it to be a coincidence (and you can estimate how likely that coincidence is).

Very lucidly put. In fact, the 'rotating object' hypothesis takes on the burden of accounting for two coincidences, both of which can be calculated as being highly unlikely: The coincidence of the object's rotations almost perfectly synchronizing with (1) other camera artifacts that also rotate during image-rotation and with (2) camera bumps affecting the entire image. In fact, these two coincidences refute the object hypothesis somewhat comfortably even without the glare hypothesis. That the black shape can be shown to closely resemble a glare is an icing on the cake.

P.S. I don't think anyone claims the black shape is not an artifact of a real physical object. But as a camera artifact it's not an accurate rendition of it.
 

Ulrich

New Member
They'd be able to see it better and better, as they got closer. But the video does not show that part, the video we have just shows the potentially mysterious bit, but cuts before the bit where the mystery might be resolved by getting a closer look at the target. But what's life without preserving a bit of mystery, eh?
Yeah, that‘s frustrating. I think, Pilot Ryan Graves did say that he saw another version of the Gimbal-Video. A longer one. Showing more weird stuff.
That leads me to the question, why the US-Goverment or Pentagon handle that issue the way they do.
They could debunk that case easily. If there is a longer version, they could show that version. If there is not a longer version, they could say: „Well, we asked our technical supplier about this Glare-theory, that Mick West stated. Well, we cant say anything detailed about our airplanes, but he is right in that particular issue about the rotating glare“.
That question became a matter of national interest, at least because of the puplic media or the Pentagon-Report. So why do they not say anything?
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Any debunk/explanation necessarily involves the Pentagon/Raytheon disclosing some classified information about the specs/limits/flaws of US Military technology to the public. They are not in the habit of doing so. Even if these flaws are obvious to a person with an understanding of the technology and even if some of this information has already been leaked (like the older F-18/ATFLIR manuals that contain some limited information about operation) they are not going to confirm or deny data it's part of the default operational secrecy.

Like If I asked the Pentagon "Does the ATFLIR MFD show altitude on the bottom right of the overlay?" They would likely not respond or say "we do not comment on technology used by our armed forces" or some other non committal statement. Even though it's obvious to everyone it does.

Also it would require them to comment alongside but not as part of the current political process that is happening, so the chances are even less than they were, unless someone high up demands it and even then it might not happen.

Every time this comes up I ask the inquirer why they think the internal file name in the Navy for the this video is "GIMBAL?" does that not provide some clue as to the actual internal knowledge of this video?
 

FatPhil

Active Member
"......Two of these videos, colloquially dubbed “Go Fast” and “Gimbal,” displayed one of the objects that had perplexed Graves and his fellow Red Rippers back in 2015. The DoD would later authenticate the clips and confirm the objects in the videos were indeed “unidentified aerial phenomena.....”
This interesting segment from an interview to thedebrief.org

https://thedebrief.org/devices-of-unknown-origin-part-ii-interlopers-over-the-atlantic-ryan-graves/
Your quote does not support the claims being questioned by "The same plane and the same flight? So also the same Pilot & WSO in gimbal and gofast?". It would support a claim that they're the same object, and that they were witnessed by the same unit, but neither of those are the specific claims being questioned.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
If there's 30 or so missions/vids for them to chose from, 2 are likely to have the same code

It really depends on how the codes are cycled. The original claim was early in the analysis from a reddit post claiming that it was highly unlikely and the PRF codes were mission specific. I reanalysed that post from Reddit

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/ConspiracyII/comments/840ecy/buckle_up_boys_youre_about_to_get_learnt_a_little/


"Gimbal and Go Fast are both pieces of the same video it appears .... if you look to the right side of the sensor overlays you'll see a 4 digit code, in THIS VIDEO [GIMBAL] it is 1688 and supposedly shot in 2004 on a routine training mission. That is the laser PRF code set for laser guided munitions. The Go Fast video with the waves in the backdrop was east coast- that jets PRF code was also 1688 and shot in 2015. This DOES NOT HAPPEN. PRF codes are assigned to a specific aircraft for specific sorties and the odds of this PRF being recycled through service to a new aircraft when there are millions of combinations are just that- 1 in millions."

On further reflection doesn't seem quite right it claims "1 in millions" but surely at most it's 1 in 9999 with a 4 digit code. Does the birthday odds paradox apply here?

I mean it seems an unlikely co-incidence that 2 of 3 best ever UAP videos just used the exact same code either way but is it?
 

FatPhil

Active Member
It really depends on how the codes are cycled. The original claim was early in the analysis from a reddit post claiming that it was highly unlikely and the PRF codes were mission specific. I reanalysed that post from Reddit

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/ConspiracyII/comments/840ecy/buckle_up_boys_youre_about_to_get_learnt_a_little/


"Gimbal and Go Fast are both pieces of the same video it appears .... if you look to the right side of the sensor overlays you'll see a 4 digit code, in THIS VIDEO [GIMBAL] it is 1688 and supposedly shot in 2004 on a routine training mission. That is the laser PRF code set for laser guided munitions. The Go Fast video with the waves in the backdrop was east coast- that jets PRF code was also 1688 and shot in 2015. This DOES NOT HAPPEN. PRF codes are assigned to a specific aircraft for specific sorties and the odds of this PRF being recycled through service to a new aircraft when there are millions of combinations are just that- 1 in millions."

On further reflection doesn't seem quite right it claims "1 in millions" but surely at most it's 1 in 9999 with a 4 digit code. Does the birthday odds paradox apply here?

I mean it seems an unlikely co-incidence that 2 of 3 best ever UAP videos just used the exact same code either way but is it?
My 30 or so was based on "each digit is between 0 and 7" and the birthday paradox, which needn't apply, it's dependent on who does the selecting of the vids. Who knows - it might be quite possible that Lou or whoever noticed the coincidence and was drawn to it. Without the paradox, it would be 3/4096 (as there are 3 pairs of vids when you have 3 vids). However, "1688" contradicts the prior 0-7 claim, so maybe it's 3/10000 instead.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
My 30 or so was based on "each digit is between 0 and 7" and the birthday paradox, which needn't apply, it's dependent on who does the selecting of the vids. Who knows - it might be quite possible that Lou or whoever noticed the coincidence and was drawn to it. Without the paradox, it would be 3/4096 (as there are 3 pairs of vids when you have 3 vids). However, "1688" contradicts the prior 0-7 claim, so maybe it's 3/10000 instead.
Man how did I not makes that connection that there was an 8 in the PRF in the videos, that is another sim not being accurate issue then.
 

Jon Teets

New Member
My 30 or so was based on "each digit is between 0 and 7" and the birthday paradox, which needn't apply, it's dependent on who does the selecting of the vids. Who knows - it might be quite possible that Lou or whoever noticed the coincidence and was drawn to it. Without the paradox, it would be 3/4096 (as there are 3 pairs of vids when you have 3 vids). However, "1688" contradicts the prior 0-7 claim, so maybe it's 3/10000 instead.

1688 is the setting in DCS's ATFLIR instructional youtube videos. Coincidence? Is it a default? Maybe always used in training, perhaps changed only during missions?

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGQYBpXqfMU&t=5s&ab_channel=MattWagner
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
It seems like it is way more complicated/specific based on some googling

Possibly 1688 is a default code. I think it's no longer safe to say they are the same flight etc based on PRF code alone.

codes ending in 88 seem to be at the end of ranges

https://github.com/acemod/ACE3/issues/967

Relevant information from the US Army 2005 AH-64D Operators' manual.

CODE RANGE.

The CODE RANGE indicates
the laser code ranges which are supported by the laser
keywords resident on the DTC.

The helicopter is capable
of supporting the Tri -Service pulse repetition frequency
(PRF) laser codes and USAF, Hellfire and Copperhead
pulse interval modulation (PIM) laser codes.

In order for
the LRFD, [ MT LST] and Hellfire subsystem to use a
PIM laser code the appropriate keyword, for the specific
code range, is required:

1111 - 1788 Tri -Service . . . . . . PRF
2111 - 2888 USAF . . . . . . . . . . . PIM
4111 - 4288 Hellfire-A . . . . . . . PIM
4311 - 4488 Hellfire-B . . . . . . . . PIM
4511 - 4688 Hellfire-C . . . . . . . PIM
4711 - 4888 Hellfire-D . . . . . . . PIM
5111 - 5288 Copperhead-A . . . PIM
5311 - 5488 Copperhead-B . . . PIM
5511 - 5688 Copperhead-C . . . PIM
5711 - 5888 Copperhead-D . . . PIM

1688 used as an "example code" here:

https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

But also

(Note: The AC-130H’s LTD is permanently preset with only one code [1688] and cannot be changed).
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
1111 - 1788 Tri -Service . . . . . . PRF
That's 678 different codes.

Let's do "birthday maths":
Draw the first code at random.
Chance for the second code to match is 1/678.
Chance for the second code to not match the first, but for the third code to match either one is 677/678*2/678.
1/678+677/678*2/678=0.44%

Less than 1%, it's practically impossible to happen at random if all codes are equally likely to get chosen.
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
That's 688 different codes.

Let's do "birthday maths":
Draw the first code at random.
Chance for the second code to match is 1/688.
Chance for the second code to not match the first, but for the third code to match either one is 687/688*2/688.
1/688+687/688*2/688=0.44%

Less than 1%, it's practically impossible to happen at random if all codes are equally likely to get chosen.
On pure maths yeah but there's enough references to numbers ending 88 and 1688 itself that the number 1688 might be special in some way and less likely to be purely random.
 

MclachlanM

Active Member
1688 is referred to as the default laser code used by JTAC in the DCS manual:
1629207060939.png

JTAC is 'Joint terminal attack controller'. Basically if the US want to provide air support for allied troops, then the allied troops will use their own laser target designator on the ground to point out the target, then the F18s will fly over head, plug the default code into the system and release the bomb. The bomb will then find the ground laser that is using the same LSTC (it will be different for certain cases but in this case it will be 1688) and hit the target.

The point in this is so that the F18 doesn't need to find the target or fire its own laser (thereby reducing the chances of friendly fire). The LSTC is not given to the aircraft, it's not randomly designated or anything like that. JTAC laser designated bombing was commonly used in Afghanistan/Iraq so the chances of two planes practicing using the same JTAC default code whilst preparing for deployment is probably very likely.

Even if we know it is the same crew via. voices/setup, we don't know if it was the same flight as the ATFLIR doesn't show any mission specific data.
 

FatPhil

Active Member
That's 678 different codes.

Let's do "birthday maths":
Draw the first code at random.
Chance for the second code to match is 1/678.
Chance for the second code to not match the first, but for the third code to match either one is 677/678*2/678.
1/678+677/678*2/678=0.44%

Less than 1%, it's practically impossible to happen at random if all codes are equally likely to get chosen.
You're assuming a 9 can appear, which is as yet not proven, and from what I've seen above, I'm not even so sure about 0.
However, you're also assuming that they've only ever had 3 pod recordings go through their hands, which seems an absurdity. These 3 were selected from a bigger set. We know nothing about either of the two selection processes, attempting to put probabilities to coincidences is basically just a wild stab in the dark.
 
Top