FlyBy UFO Video from Congressional Hearing
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
taurusclover21
Active Member
If it's a reflection from inside of the canopy, how does it "fly by?"
The bokeh shown during the first eight seconds is obviously a reflection.
The bokeh shown during the first eight seconds is obviously a reflection.
The first eight seconds is nothing at all to do with the UAP, which is only in the video for three frames in the last second.
Last edited:
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
I think Mick is saying it's a bright specular reflection of the sun from the object rendered as a ball due to being out of focus, so likely a shiny object, like a Mylar balloon.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
I think a lot of people are missing the context around the presentation of this video in the hearing, it seemed to be to demonstrate the low quality and sparse data of a lot of the UAP reports, because of the speed it happened only a low quality out of focus video with 3 frames of data was able to be captured.
Hence why an full ID is not possible in a lot of cases.
Hence why an full ID is not possible in a lot of cases.
But why show this if there's better footage they could have shown?
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
I think were saying "look sometimes we can't 100% id stuff, because all we have is 3 out of focus frames of poor quality video."
Like when we get a 240p no context video of a white light in a black sky.
I'm still trying to work out if they are avoiding coming out and saying yeah sometimes it's 90% likely a kids balloon, because then they get headlines like Top Gun pilots stymied by kids balloons.
Last edited:
taurusclover21
Active Member
I understand that, I was only comparing what was an obvious reflection to what is claimed to have flown by.
taurusclover21
Active Member
Except he didn't write any of that. However, I agree it's a ballon, not simply a reflection. It's an out-of-focus object.
Last edited:
taurusclover21
Active Member
Yes, with alleged high-tech sensors, this is the best they have?
Would you consider this "footage" to be LIZ?
JMartJr
Senior Member.
He wrote that the bright area is bokeh from a reflection. The pretty clear implication there is that the darker bit partially obscured by the bokeh is... not that. It is something outside the cockpit reflecting a lot of light at the camera, out of focus because the camera is focused on the canopy. Being out if focus allows the reflected light to do the old bokeh thing.
Perhaps Mr. West is not as tediously long winded as I am...
Yeah, it's JAB (Just Another Balloon).
I've said something similar about a lot of these videos. Does the military really want to advertise that service members can't properly focus equipment, or that they can't identify mundane objects? Better to let the UFO rumors circulate and not tarnish the image of the military as being incompetent.
I don't think the Navy is worried that people will think their pilots are inept. Decades of evidence suggests US Navy pilots are good pilots. The position that naval aviators are helpless and stupid is not widely held outside metabunk.
I think it's more likely that the Navy doesn't see the benefit of pointing out how common kids balloons are. In the uncommon (10% in your scenario) event it's not a balloon and instead represents a national security threat from another nation, the Navy will have to answer for why they didn't take the possibility more seriously.
"You dismissed an enemy weapon as a kid's balloon and it led to the deaths of innocent people. How can you live with yourself?" might be a response the Navy would like to protect itself against.
"Pity the Reader."
-Kurt Vonnegut
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
I don't think anyone on Metabunk holds that position and I don't think my statement indicates otherwise.
chudley_wetlegs
New Member
I believe this in regards to sensors.
Yes, they are highly effective in combat. Yes, they are great aviators. Their historical prowess and ability is not in question.
I'd never suggest they were inept or incapable of effective combat etc
But there's more to consider than just flying well and maintaining superiorty in active combat, in the context of these footages and the modern world.
Not understanding how basic parallax works (referring to Mick's work on GOFAST) is a bad look. Misidentifying a nearly static ballon as a 'fast moving physics defying super vehicle' is a bad look. Your enemies are developing new stealth, intel, and combat technology. Their success was proven in the old world, while that technology was the peak of its time, we are clearly well ahead of that.
The best and brightest are jumping at shadows. I think that's embarrassing to admit when you're in a technology war with China and (to a MUCH lesser extent these days) Russia.
Again, I'm not saying they are weak or dumb.
Question: how often do they go into combat situations with zero intel on enemy resources? With zero idea that anything will be there? They are briefed on what to look for before missions. Seeing something you don't expect during training is a different mindset.
Last edited:
Edward Current
Senior Member.
I've said this for a long time: The U.S. military is very very good, unparalleled really, at doing what they are trained to do. But that excellence does not generalize to novel, unexpected, "need to think outside the box" situations. We saw this on 9/11/01, for example.
Totally anecdotal, but my sister was career Air Force from age 18 until she retired. And it shows. She's the most organized and reliable person I know, but she once drove an hour to buy a wrench of a particular size, specified in the instructions, so she could put together a table.
The aaro recently put up a website. This is one of 8 videos listed under the Cases section as "DVIDS Video - Unresolved Case: Navy 2021 Flyby".
https://www.aaro.mil/
https://www.aaro.mil/
Rocky
Active Member
I really think the military doesn't care about what fighter pilots or anyone else for that matter says about UFOs. That's why they never respond. It's nothing but a waste of time. If they did reply and said it was kids balloons etc, the rumors and conspiracies would still go on. Only now they are involved in the conversation.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Given the opportunity, I'd ask them "Is there any particular reason that you think that CANNOT be a balloon?"
(I'd also ask something along the lines of, "There seems to be a strong tendency for UAP video clips to emerge from the Navy, here you provide another one. Is this supported by your data as a whole? If so, is this due to UAP beng more likely to interact with Navy assets, to Naval personel being more likely to fail to identify balloons and other common objects, to a "UFO Flap" having arisen inside Navy culture, or to other causes?" )
Similar threads
