"GO FAST" Footage from Tom DeLonge's To The Stars Academy. Bird? Balloon?

Todd Wasson said:
Assuming FixedUpdate2() is being called by FixedUpdate(), this code is incorrect and will leave a frame rate dependent mismatch between the simulation and the real video proportional to the difference in graphics update frequency, physics frequency, and project vsynchv settings. On a 60Hz monitor with 30 fps (skipping every second v-blank), the ratio is 30/50. At 60 fps (standard vsynch), the ratio is 60/50, etc.. On a 75Hz or other frequency monitor with vsynch enabled, the results will change accordingly.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That code is a little old, and I've since changed it to just instantly run throught physics-only with a fixed timestep of 0.0333333 (1/30th), recording the entire thing, then synchronizing playback frame-by frame with the video, so I can simultaneously scrub them side by side.
 
Last edited:
Alphadunk said:
You'll find no argument from me in regards to Leslie Kean, she's a full woo-believer 100%. That said, the article was co-written by Ralph Blumenthal who is a legitimate journalist with a large body of respected work. I'm hesitant to dismiss their work completely due to his involvement. I still think it was a story worth telling.

I'm not sure the interdimensional ghost stuff is even all that fringe among UFO believers presently. If you read forums made up primarily of believers, it actually seems to be the predominant theory these days. You don't see as much discussion about nuts n' bolts flying saucers compared to the topic in the 1950's-1990's. Funnily enough, the exact same thing has happened in the Bigfoot community. Gone are the days of an egregiously large undiscovered primate stalking the American woods. Nowadays lots of people believe Bigfoot to be some sort of interdimensional entity, ghost, skinwalker, etc.
Click to expand...
The explanation of aliens, ghosts or bigfoot are interdimensional beings by the paranormal community is because there is no way to argue against an unproven theory based on no evidence. For instance, it is very difficult to explain away a creature that has lived side by side with humans since beginning of history with the actual numbers needed to sustain such a group of bipeds. There would have to be millions of them. Same with the Lochness Monster. Its just very unlikely they would be so elusive. Sooooo, lets make them interdimensional. Bingo. LOL. Explanation solved.
 
Leonardo Cuellar said:
So also the Indian geese, reach those altitudes but always fly at very low heights from the ground. If a bird was visible in the GOFAST video, there is no biological justification for it to travel at 5000 meters level, over 300 miles from the coast at a constant speed of tens of mph, in winter....
Click to expand...

Good points, but we should not be too quick to rule out birds as an explanation of freak events. I've been reading the book 'The UFO Files', by David Clarke (2nd edition, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2012), based on researches in the UK National Archives. He notes that

On rare occasions large individual birds had been known to cause chaos. Barry Huddard, who served with Fighter Command in 1957, recalled one incident 'when fighters were scrambled to intercept an echo on a radar screen which turned out to be a Golden Eagle at 25,000 feet in a jet stream, very unusual but nonetheless true'. [location 1099 in the Amazon Kindle version].
Click to expand...

This is part of a general discussion of the problem of interpreting radar signals in the 1950s. After much research, flocks of migrating birds were found to be a common source of radar echoes, and the systems were tweaked to ignore them. The problem became less serious with more modern radar, but Clarke reports a visit to an RAF radar centre in 2005 where he recalls

When I asked one of the operators if they ever detected UFOs she replied, with a smile: 'Sometimes, but when we spot one we just send for the technicians who come along and tune them out'. [location 1123]
Click to expand...

The whole book is well worth reading.
 
Admittedly drifting off topic:

Thought experiment: Okay, UFOlogists! You've convinced me and everyone of note that Aliens are driving flying saucers around the skies of our planet. It's an accepted fact.

Okay... now what?
 
Claim by Alpha Check on Twitter


Source: https://twitter.com/alpha_check/status/1503846649629659141?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1503846649629659141%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublish.twitter.com%2F%3Fquery%3Dhttps3A2F2Ftwitter.com2Falpha_check2Fstatus2F1503846649629659141widget%3DTweet


Basically this seems like a distraction from @Mick West's actual point which is a counterpoint to Alpha Check's claim that the ATFLIR does not do the following


Source: https://twitter.com/alpha_check/status/1503789281315274753?s=20&t=EqoIZBhKm_JoB08IIuKDvw


I mean whether it was moved with a TDC joystick or a helmet it's still "random" which I take to actually mean "speculative human controlled" slewing, which is what we see in the Go Fast video.

But the claim is worth investigating to maybe get a better picture, Alpha Check a prominent YouTuber sim pilot is often held up a SME (Subject Matter Expert) by UFO people on the stuff we see in the Navy videos, but he has been shown to be incorrect and I feel often just tries to blind people with acronyms and jargon.

The claim is that one of the pilot/WSO is wearing a JHMCS helmet, and steering the ATLFLIR using head movements to get the target in sight, from there it is capture by auto track.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display#Joint_Helmet-Mounted_Cueing_System_(JHMCS)

To me it doesn't look like this as the major movements of the camera look to be large smooth movements along one direction, which doesn't initially appear to be what you would expect to see from a device mirroring human head movements.
 
jarlrmai said:
Claim by Alpha Check on Twitter


Source: https://twitter.com/alpha_check/status/1503846649629659141?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1503846649629659141%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublish.twitter.com%2F%3Fquery%3Dhttps3A2F2Ftwitter.com2Falpha_check2Fstatus2F1503846649629659141widget%3DTweet


Basically this seems like a distraction from @Mick West's actual point which is a counterpoint to Alpha Check's claim that the ATFLIR does not do the following


Source: https://twitter.com/alpha_check/status/1503789281315274753?s=20&t=EqoIZBhKm_JoB08IIuKDvw


I mean whether it was moved with a TDC joystick or a helmet it's still "random" which I take to actually mean "speculative human controlled" slewing, which is what we see in the Go Fast video.

But the claim is worth investigating to maybe get a better picture, Alpha Check a prominent YouTuber sim pilot is often held up a SME (Subject Matter Expert) by UFO people on the stuff we see in the Navy videos, but he has been shown to be incorrect and I feel often just tries to blind people with acronyms and jargon.

The claim is that one of the pilot/WSO is wearing a JHMCS helmet, and steering the ATLFLIR using head movements to get the target in sight, from there it is capture by auto track.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display#Joint_Helmet-Mounted_Cueing_System_(JHMCS)

To me it doesn't look like this as the major movements of the camera look to be large smooth movements along one direction, which doesn't initially appear to be what you would expect to see from a device mirroring human head movements.
Click to expand...

Alpha check should know that ATFLIR is itself a target acquisition sensor. This is done through the autotrack mode. It need not necessarily be slaved to another sensor.
 
Old thread I know but I just wanted to remake the footage in dcs, to get a more accurate idea of how much the jet's heading changed (in degrees).
Source: https://youtu.be/ioo5PcN941s

I found it was about 15 degrees to the left in the period of the 'lock'. However, this jet was the F/A 18c not the super hornet as in the real encounter. Also, the weight of the aircraft is almost certainly going to be different as I don't know what their full loadout is (if someone knows please tell me). Another point to mention is that I have not factored for wind speed and direction (again please tell me if you know) so this was done with no wind speed (very unrealistic but I doubt it has much of an effect). And most obviously, I cannot replicate the wing's motions exactly, I tried my best and got pretty close but you can see at the start I was a bit off, and also worth noting that the autopilot (altitude hold set to 25,000 feet) in DCS is not that good (it tends to not be able to exactly hold the attitude) so it can also cause a difference in the result. :) And this is DCS not irl, so its always going to a bit different.
 
jackfrostvc said:
So Nine News here in Australia are saying a Pentagon official told them the following in relation to the Go-Fast object:

"optical illusion created by the angle of the recording"
Click to expand...
This seems to be based on the NYT story, and not be new info.

Article:
One of the videos, referred to as GoFast, appears to show an object moving at immense speed. But an analysis by the military says that is an illusion created by the angle of observation against water. According to Pentagon calculations, the object is moving only about 30 miles per hour.
 
jackfrostvc said:
So Nine News here in Australia are saying a Pentagon official told them the following in relation to the Go-Fast object:

"optical illusion created by the angle of the recording"

"object was moving at a maximum of 48 km/h" ie 30 Mph

Source: https://www.9news.com.au/world/ufo-...henomena/33abc6e0-02a2-4518-bbfc-55c6d3df8514
Click to expand...
One thing that might help trying to work out exactly who said what in what context would be if 9news had provided a more useful link behind "New York Times" than https://www.nytimes.com/section/todayspaper to support the "relatively ordinary" in quotation marks in
External Quote:
But now anonymous Pentagon officials believe several UFO incidents can be attributed to "relatively ordinary" Chinese surveillance drones, reports the New York Times.
dated Nov 10, 2022.

My weak google-fu seems to suggest they're referring to https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/28/us/politics/ufo-military-reports.html 's
External Quote:
This article is based on interviews with American officials familiar with the findings of the Pentagon and intelligence agencies' examination of the incidents. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified work.

Some of the incidents have been formally attributed to Chinese surveillance — with relatively ordinary drone technology — and others are also thought to be connected to Beijing. China, which has stolen plans for advanced fighter planes, wants to learn more about how the United States trains its military pilots, according to American officials.
which was Published Oct. 28, 2022 Updated Jan. 12, 2023
 
Can anyone who has been following it break down the NASA analysis and subsequent UFO twitter noise?

All I can get is NASA did an analysis but didn't take into account turn rate or wind or something and got the low end speed based on the simple trigonometry model as detailed at the start of this thread.

But there's some wind data that other people have? Or classified data thats NASA has and didn't use? Or its the same data?

So they got it wrong? But its still wind speed driven its just NASA didn't do an in depth investigation? Or something else?
 

Source: https://x.com/MickWest/status/1859278923898683760


1732130448739.png


I cannot believe how disingenuous this statement is

1. AARO didn't label this video, it was already labelled when Mellon/Elizondo/TTSA bought it to our intention. Before AARO even existed.
2. Lt. Col Chris Cook (ret) is on video as part of TV documentaries saying it's 'hauling ass,' where was Mr. Graves' rebuttal for Cook at that point?
3. It's stunningly convenient that Graves just happened to find out this incredible revelation that this was "a 4 object formation" recently. Why did the Elizondo/AATIP/UAPTF/TTSA etc not find this out? Why did Mr. Graves decline to share this information until just after AARO's report. Why not share this with AARO?
 
jarlrmai said:
3. It's stunningly convenient that Graves just happened to find out this incredible revelation that this was "a 4 object formation" recently. Why did the Elizondo/AATIP/UAPTF/TTSA etc not find this out? Why did Mr. Graves decline to share this information until just after AARO's report. Why not share this with AARO?
Click to expand...
Conceivably. because there is no need to try and fond some new reason why this nothingburger of a video is amazing until the original reason it was claimed to be amazing is disproved. Handily, there is little chance that debunkers working with the video can ever disprove the new claim, since there is no sign of it in the video -- though one could debate whether "four objects about a mile apart drifting along at wind speed" is all that exciting...
 
jarlrmai said:
I think we worked it out from the time codes in the video as being before. But it was a while ago..
Click to expand...
GoFast time code is 42 minutes Gimbal is 52. This suggests GoFast is first. However, hours are not shown. It's not clear what the time code does after one hour. So Gimbal is probably either ten minutes after GoFast, or 50 minutes before it. Graves says "just minutes apart", but does not specify how many, or in what order.
 
It's a hilarious development, the new talking point that the interesting thing about GoFast was never its speed. That's right, the "Look at it fly!! Whoo!!" UFO (that's what I scream about slow-moving things all the time). Someone tried this with me on Twitter a couple weeks ago, and I thought he was kidding, but he wasn't. Disingenuous, for sure.

I challenge anyone to find a post anywhere on the internet, certainly prior to Mick's initial trig analysis but even just 6 months ago, with this claim.
 
jarlrmai said:
Does Elizondo reference Go Fast in his book (I refuse to buy a copy) if so what does he say there?
Click to expand...
External Quote:

One morning during this whole process, our email inbox rewarded us with two videos we received in a bath of data from Fleet Forces Command. Both videos had been taken from the air by pilots in the Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, using the same sort of ATFLIR pod that Commander Fravor's squadron had used to capture the 2004 Tic Tac video.

The object in one of the videos also resembled a Tic Tac, at least in the sense that it was rounded, smooth, and egg-shaped. But where the 2004 Tic Tac was more than 40 feet long, this object—in the video that would later become famously known as GoFast—was no more than about 18 feet long, tops. That's smaller than a Piper Cub, an aircraft built for bush pilots and recreational fliers. A Cub is lightweight, about 765 pounds, and flies no faster than 90 miles per hour.
"Whoa, got it! Whoo-hoooo!"
Another voice, most likely the pilot, says, "What the f—is that thing?"
Someone else, probably the radar operator witnessing this event from aboard the Roosevelt, chimes in: "Did you box a moving target?"
"No," the Weapon Systems Operator (WSO) replies. "It's in auto track."
"Oh—okay. Oh my gosh, dude!"
"What is that, man?"
"Look at that thing flying!" The object moves from the top right to the lower left of the screen. There's no plume of exhaust, no wings, no propellers. Just a speedy little egg out for a jaunt above the ocean. At the time, no one in DoD or the IC could explain it. After several years of analysis, however, later researchers would claim that the object was going much slower than previously thought. This effect is called a parallax. I still don't agree with this assessment, since the pilots who witnessed the object flying marveled at its speed.

Elizondo, Luis. Imminent: Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs: Written by the Former Head of the Pentagon Program Investigating UAPs (pp. 145-146). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
 
Edward Current said:
It's a hilarious development, the new talking point that the interesting thing about GoFast was never its speed. That's right, the "Look at it fly!! Whoo!!" UFO (that's what I scream about slow-moving things all the time). Someone tried this with me on Twitter a couple weeks ago, and I thought he was kidding, but he wasn't. Disingenuous, for sure.
Click to expand...

Yep, and the new prover maneuver is somebody saying someone else told them stuff.

It's funny how all of the crazy stuff happens during the part of the video that doesn't get leaked.
 
My jaw is still on the floor at this:
External Quote:
But where the 2004 Tic Tac was more than 40 feet long, this object—in the video that would later become famously known as GoFast—was no more than about 18 feet long, tops. That's smaller than a Piper Cub, an aircraft built for bush pilots and recreational fliers. A Cub is lightweight, about 765 pounds, and flies no faster than 90 miles per hour.
• none of the lengths can be established from the videos
• Elizondo picks a random plane to compare the object to, when there's really no similarity
• ...and then uses the speed of that randomly picked aircraft to make a point about the speed of the object
• but the speed of the object isn't established, either

His attitude can be paraphrased as, "I want this to be what my first impression thought it was".
 
jarlrmai said:
1. AARO didn't label this video, it was already labelled when Mellon/Elizondo/TTSA bought it to our intention. Before AARO even existed.
Click to expand...

Which is particularly egregious given the "since the pilots who witnessed the object flying marveled at its speed." quote from Lue "Imminent" 'Zondo as quoted by Mick a couple of posts back ^^.

It's nice to see them fighting amongst themselves, and not even realise they're doing it. Popcorn's cheap.
 
There are two other aircrew involved in the Nimitz event as well who have never identified themselves. Some people prefer to be anonymous, especially if they are still active in the military.
 
Eburacum said:
There are two other aircrew involved in the Nimitz event as well who have never identified themselves. Some people prefer to be anonymous, especially if they are still active in the military.
Click to expand...

Even though the WSO in Fravors jet, and the Pilot in Underwoods jet were never publicly named. I have heard who they are through the grape vine. Nothing for the Gimbal Pilot/WSO though.

My understanding is the Pilot and WSO who were unnamed publicly for the Tic Tac events, was because they were still serving. Which is why I'm curios if that is the reason the names for WSO/Pilot for Gimbal/Go-Fast have not come out
 
jarlrmai said:
A rough guess can be made using the FOV of the ATFLIR at the zoom level shown in the video and the range given by the overlay. We made this calculation during the analysis
Click to expand...

gtoffo said:
And just how big is the "bird"?
Not sure if someone did this already but to calculate approximate size:
Pixels of object / total pixels of the video on my screen: 13/644=0.020
ATFLIR NFOV Zoom level 1 field of view 0.70 deg https://www.explorescu.org/post/nimitz_strike_group_2004
So apparent size is 0.020*0.70=0.014126° which at a distance of 3.4 nautical miles=6296 meters means the object is around 1.55 meters wide.
Click to expand...

This seems notably smaller than a Piper Cub.
 
Yeah that was about it there was some debate about if NFOV with 2x digital zoom on ATFLIR was 0.7 or 0.35 degrees (it seemed to have changed with the versions at some point) which made it between ~6 ish to ~3 feet depending on where you measured the pixels from in the video, either way pretty small.
 
jarlrmai said:
the range likely comes from radar which points more towards a balloon with a radar reflector on it.
Click to expand...
Would a foil balloon be radarable without a reflector? I'd guess not AS bright, without the magic of corner reflectors, just wondering if the metalized foil would be enough to show up...
 
JMartJr said:
Would a foil balloon be radarable without a reflector? I'd guess not AS bright, without the magic of corner reflectors, just wondering if the metalized foil would be enough to show up...
Click to expand...
Yeah could also be a metalized balloon canopy I guess.

The whole 'where does the range come from' thing is a debate that needs an unfettered unbiased ATFLIR F/A 18 systems expert to discuss with.
 
The range is not from radar, it's from the ATFLIR passive ranging, which looks at contrast between pixels. Accuracy for that method is uncertain, especially in air-to-air situation. I say that from direct communication with R. Graves, and also with the head of the NASA UAP panel (they assumed laser was fired but it does not seem to be the case, it's just passive ranging).

I think AARO could easily verify how accurate that range is, in particular by contacting the WSO who locked the object, but unfortunately they haven't done so.
 
I'm sorry I just cannot find any reference to that type of ranging existing in the ATFLIR.

Are there any detailed papers that describe how such a system would function.

Why does 'passive ranging' not work in the GIMBAL video?
 
Just reporting what I heard. I wish we had more clarity about this, and it's a missed opportunity by AARO.

As far as why passive ranging is not working in Gimbal, it could be that this mode only activates for ground targets, i.e. when the pod looks down.
Just speculation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mendel
NASA panel analyzes GO FAST
2
Replies
54
Views
8K
JMartJr
JMartJr
Mick West
Ryan Graves: Whistleblow describes metal object striking Gulfstream Jet
Replies
19
Views
3K
Mendel
Mendel
S
Man who claims to "summon ufos" appears on news channel:
Replies
17
Views
2K
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
flarkey
NUFORC UFO Sighting 183179 (Military Aircraft Refuelling)
Replies
1
Views
480
Duke
Duke
Candycane7
Video: triangle light formation going fast across the night sky 2024-10-31
Replies
4
Views
768
Tezcatlipoca
T

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top