Go Fast - Claim that the Video Shows it Going Underwater

PublicStranger

Active Member
I know the altitude calculation pretty much puts this to bed but interesting post none the less.

Claim from a ufologist saying the first few seconds of the go fast video where the radar is trying to get a lock is that the object is transmedium and is actually going underwater. He backs up this claim by highlighting a few still frames where the sea level appears to be above the object.

The video:



Screenshot_20230902-204227.jpg
Screenshot_20230902-204355.jpg
Screenshot_20230902-204410.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The RADAR is not trying to get a lock, in Go Fast the WSO is attempting to use the ATFLIRs autotrack facility to get an "autotrack" which is where the system uses purely the image displayed to get an optical tracking lock based on the contrasting pixels on the screen.

This is not normally done and it's probably quite hard to do when you have to manullly slew the camera using a joystick on your flight controls on a tiny screen in a combat jet, normally the RADAR (or really the the MSI computer) has a track for the object which provides an angle to the target and it automatically slews the camera so it points towards it and from there the optical system chimes in and tracks it, which once locked is a smoother track.

What this frame looks like it's some sort of interpolated/interlacing issue called "combing" where the scene is between 2 frames making things less clear, notice how the object and the autotrack box and the ocean surface all have horizontal lines?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video

External Quote:
Interlaced video is designed to be captured, stored, transmitted, and displayed in the same interlaced format. Because each interlaced video frame is two fields captured at different moments in time, interlaced video frames can exhibit motion artifacts known as interlacing effects, or combing, if recorded objects move fast enough to be in different positions when each individual field is captured. These artifacts may be more visible when interlaced video is displayed at a slower speed than it was captured, or in still frames.
1693687779993.png
 
What this frame looks like it's some sort of interpolated/interlacing issue called "combing" where the scene is between 2 frames making things less clear, notice how the object and the autotrack box and the ocean surface all have horizontal lines?
Correct. Something that moves a lot between frames will have significant interlacing artifacts. The times where it is not visible is where this interlacing and motion blur makes it drop below the change threshold for the video compression.

If you want to look at the actual pixels, try the Sitrec video player. Change to Preset Video to GoFast. Zoom in with the mouse wheel, frame advance with <>
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?sitch=video
 
Last edited:
I know the altitude calculation pretty much puts this to bed but interesting post none the less.

Claim from a ufologist saying the first few seconds of the go fast video where the radar is trying to get a lock is that the object is transmedium and is actually going underwater. He backs up this claim by highlighting a few still frames where the sea level appears to be above the object.

The video:

View attachment 62214

View attachment 62215View attachment 62216View attachment 62217

Maybe I am mis-remembering, but I thought the Go-Fast video gave us the distance to the UFO, and that was the entire basis of Mick West's parallax debunk. Which would mean the UFO cannot have been on the surface.
 
Maybe I am mis-remembering, but I thought the Go-Fast video gave us the distance to the UFO, and that was the entire basis of Mick West's parallax debunk. Which would mean the UFO cannot have been on the surface.
It does, some people dispute this figure's accuracy (Chris Lehto was the 1st) etc despite TTSA themselves saying that's what is was (but apparently not having done the calculations based on it at all.)

Also the "in the water" claimant could also claim the UFO is in the water at the start and then leaps 13000 feet into the air which is when it becomes trackable.

That's the thing about UFO videos, anyone can make up a story about them based on magical UFO technology.
 
That's the thing about UFO videos, anyone can make up a story about them based on magical UFO technology.
And we know it must be a UFO because it uses magical technology.

That's why we have the GIMBAL J-hook instead of the "straight and level" constant-velocity solution: if it was the latter, it wouldn't look like a UFO, it would just look like some witnesses were confused. And that's not magical at all.
 
Or the aliens of the gaps.
Aliens of the LIZ.

Article:
"God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century and revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God.[1][2] This perspective has its origins in the observation that some individuals, often with religious inclinations, point to areas where science falls short in explaining natural phenomena as opportunities to insert the presence of a divine creator. The term itself was coined in response to this tendency. This theological view suggests that God fills in the gaps left by scientific knowledge, and that these gaps represent moments of divine intervention or influence.

However, this concept has been met with criticism and debate from various quarters. Detractors argue that this perspective is problematic as it seems to rely on gaps in human understanding and ignorance to make its case for the existence of God. As scientific knowledge continues to advance, these gaps tend to shrink, potentially weakening the argument for God's existence. Critics contend that such an approach can undermine religious beliefs by suggesting that God only operates in the unexplained areas of our understanding, leaving little room for divine involvement in a comprehensive and coherent worldview.

Moreover, the "God of the gaps" perspective has been criticized for its association with logical fallacies, specifically the argument from ignorance fallacy. This fallacy asserts that just because something is not currently explained by science, it must be attributed to a supernatural cause. This type of reasoning is seen as inherently flawed and does not provide a robust foundation for religious faith. In this context, some theologians and scientists have proposed that a more satisfactory approach is to view evidence of God's actions within the natural processes themselves, rather than relying on the gaps in scientific understanding to validate religious beliefs.

"In my opinion I think it's either angels or it's manmade,"
 
Back
Top