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

It is annoying that AARO is such a closed process and they only release conclusions at a very high level, and they make minor but sloppy errors, it opens them up to criticisms that they are not equipped to address quickly. There was a some talk about crowdsourcing from them and also from Elizondo recently, but we've seen no sign of that leading to data the crowd can work on.

But why did the UAPTF/AATIP/TTSA not speak to the aircrew either, why did they not talk about these 4 objects, about where the range came from about parallax. Why did Graves not tell them? The 'failures' people say are AAROs are even more failures of them.

The most obvious reason it seems to me is they either were incompetent or disingenuous. At least AARO got the math basically right.

And I don't take Graves word for things anymore unfortunately he has made too many disingenuous and egregious statements, his stance on the Starlink flare sightings, his recent completely and obviously incorrect revisionist statement that AARO labelled the "Go Fast" video when it was called that since before AARO even existed. They way he seemingly 'gatekeeps' information about these 2 videos and releases it piecemeal in response to AARO/Metabunk rather than laying out some comprehensive technical statement about what he knows and can share (which he clearly can when he chooses to do so) make him seem to me like he's making it up as he goes along in order to have the last word on things.

If he can share the SA fleet, the 4 Go Fast objects, the "ATFLIR passive ranging" with others then he can write that all up as a statement and be open and responsive to questions, if he really takes this seriously.
 
Last edited:
TheCholla said:
No disagreement here, it's been extremely frustrating to follow this topic because of the lack of transparency and rigor from all sides.

As a side note, I don't think Graves said AARO named the video GoFast, in this interview he says the Pentagon debunked themselves because they named it like this, not the pilots (at 2'45).


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WulB71diYE
Click to expand...

he said it in his statement linked here

1732223927398.png
 
I should point out that birds are not invisible to radar. Neither are meteors (a fact which may be relevant to the Nimitz event).
 
jarlrmai said:
he said it in his statement linked here
External Quote:
GoFast was part of a formation?
Click to expand...
(Quoting Mick West's post on "X", see post #483)

In the YouTube footage of the NBC News item, between approx. 2 minutes 57 seconds and 3 min 09 secs, Mr Graves said

External Quote:

"What is interesting, what's anomalous is that, that video was captured within minutes of the Gimbal video, and it just goes to (sh-) further show that there were many more objects operating in that area than the first video shows
(My emphasis; any errors in transcription, punctuation are mine).

Graves, noting that GoFast was recorded on the same day as GIMBAL, extends that to mean that there were "many more objects" than in the GoFast video (one apparent object).

GIMBAL was filmed on the same day in the same operating area (although a USN carrier's area of operations is huge; do we know the physical distances and timings between the aircraft that filmed GoFast and GIMBAL? -and the "actual" GIMBAL might have been at a considerable distance from the filming F/A-18).

So to Graves, 1 object (GoFast) + 1 (possible) object (GIMBAL) = "many more objects" than just GoFast;
i.e. sighting GIMBAL necesarrily means there were multiple other objects, not just GIMBAL.

From what we currently know, this appears to be baseless- there is no evidence for this. I think this is why @Mick West asked on "X" if there was new information.

Mr Graves' choice of words is relevant and could be questioned;
External Quote:
...there were many more objects operating in that area...
-not sighted or apparently detected by USN personnel in that area, the possible objects (at least GoFast and GIMBAL, Graves implies others) were operating in that area, strongly suggesting those objects/ sensor returns were being operated- under deliberate control, perhaps as instruments of a single controlling interest.

Again, there is no evidence (that we are aware of at present) that supports this.
 
TheCholla said:
The range is not from radar, it's from the ATFLIR passive ranging, which looks at contrast between pixels.
Click to expand...
Huh? Some of us have been asking for years where the range comes from, ever since Chris Lehto claimed it was not accurate. Lehto made up some total bullshit to explain it, and this looks like more of the same. And how come these dubious claims (like the 'four objects in formation' one) have suddenly popped out of the woodwork after years of discussion, but just a day or two after AARO rained on the UFO enthusiasts' parade?
 
If you have evidence it's from radar, present it. We would all like to know.

The NASA panel thought it was from laser firing (so not radar), Graves, Lehto and Lemoine said it's passive ranging (not radar). So if you know better please share the evidence.
 
TheCholla said:
Source for CW Lemoine assuming the range is from passive ranging:


Source: https://youtu.be/M9NhOKy2K80?si=hAXwOoEntEk0hZLs&t=504
Click to expand...

Lemoine actutally says

External Quote:
based on what the computer is ranging, now I don't think he's lasing it so it's just basically doing you know trig to figure out what the math is
The computer would do math, trig and ranging based on RADAR data as well as whatever this potential passive ranging system is.

He doesn't mention passive ranging based on contrast, it sounds more like he's not sure in the moment where the range comes from tbh and just says some words that sounds right (math and trig), now he could be just making it simple for his audience,

And didn't Lehto say it was from from the laser? Which we know is probably not correct and Lemoine agrees it's not from the laser.

Lemoine also makes a basic mistake just after he talks range, he says it's going really fast IF the system is calculating it accurately, but we know that it's actually going slow if it is accurate.

So actual fighter pilots:

Graves: ATFLIR passive ranging, which looks at contrast between pixels. Accuracy for that method is uncertain, especially in air-to-air situation.
Lemoine: Computer doing trig to figure out the math
Lehto: Laser?

Elizondo

"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."

Leaked ATFLIR manual: "The radar system provides the functions listed below: a. air target range, range rate"

1732265743632.png


Obviously later/different versions of the system may perform in different ways.
 
jarlrmai said:
View attachment 73422
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I buy this.

A lot seems to hang on whether the pilots marvelled at the speed.

Like, it definitely sounds like they do. But you could possibly argue they aren't. Such as, you could say that it's a fast bird and they are just marvelling at how fast this particular bird is. The pilots are so knowledgeable that they know the speeds of all birds.

But that would mean it's not a UAP. If it's identified then what's anomalous?

It's hard to believe that the pilots here knew what they were looking at. And ultimately misinterpreted what they were seeing. And if that's the case, wouldn't that cast some doubt on what's being interpreted by the pilots from Gimbal?!?!??!
 
MyMatesBrainwashed said:
Like, it definitely sounds like they do. But you could possibly argue they aren't.
Click to expand...
But that'd be rude, wouldn't it? Distrusting these brave and upstanding pilots? If you don't understand the technicalities, wouldn't you want to be on the friendly side rather than the rude side?

Friendly and wrong often tends to beat obnoxious and correct.
 
Trying to be serious for a moment, has anyone got a clue how 'pixel contrast' might work? The obvious difficulty is that the contrast between different parts of the image must depend in part on the characteristics of the target object itself. E.g. if the target is a leopard, with lots of spots, we would expect the image to show more internal contrast, at any given distance, than if the target is a lion, with uniform surface color. The method might work if the characteristics of the object are already known - e.g. if it is known to be a particular type of aircraft - but this obviously doesn't work if the object itself is a mystery.
 
jarlrmai said:
And didn't Lehto say it was from from the laser? Which we know is probably not correct and Lemoine agrees it's not from the lase
Click to expand...
I may be misremembering, but I think Lehto also said the ranging was from some kind of 'trig'. I don't recall him mentioning the laser. When this was discussed earlier, I think people here thought there might be some kind of passive ranging if the object was known to be on the ground. If the height of the viewpoint above the ground is known, and the direction of view, the line-of-sight distance could also be calculated. Of course this doesn't help much in the Gofast case.
 
DavidB66 said:
Trying to be serious for a moment, has anyone got a clue how 'pixel contrast' might work? The obvious difficulty is that the contrast between different parts of the image must depend in part on the characteristics of the target object itself. E.g. if the target is a leopard, with lots of spots, we would expect the image to show more internal contrast, at any given distance, than if the target is a lion, with uniform surface color. The method might work if the characteristics of the object are already known - e.g. if it is known to be a particular type of aircraft - but this obviously doesn't work if the object itself is a mystery.
Click to expand...
One method is triangulation, assuming a constant-velocity target and an accelerating observation platform not moving straight towards the target.

Another method is using atmosphere interactions, i.e. absorption and diffraction: kinda like mountains in the distance look bluish; this would also reduce contrast.

The army does not have this (as of 2023):
Article:
Passive ranging is a desired new capability for our individual soldiers and for military platforms. It is not in any currently fielded system.

For the Navy, the deployment conditions are "easier" because ships on the sea and aircraft in the sky tend to move straight and are easy to track, so there may be systems in the field that can do passive ranging?
 
DavidB66 said:
Trying to be serious for a moment, has anyone got a clue how 'pixel contrast' might work? The obvious difficulty is that the contrast between different parts of the image must depend in part on the characteristics of the target object itself. E.g. if the target is a leopard, with lots of spots, we would expect the image to show more internal contrast, at any given distance, than if the target is a lion, with uniform surface color. The method might work if the characteristics of the object are already known - e.g. if it is known to be a particular type of aircraft - but this obviously doesn't work if the object itself is a mystery.
Click to expand...

Spitballing.

Without interfering with the optics:
If they are fixed focus, in particular if they are focussed at infinity, then lack of sharpness of a hard edge implies how far from infinity that edge is. One drawback of focus at infinity is that you lose half your hyperfocal range, and pay in image quality, but the alternative is that you can't necessarily tell if the object is in front or behind the hyperfocal distance. It relies on assuming there are hard edges. And of course, you've thrown away your ability to vary the distance of the focal plane, which again might be useful if you're trying to do identification.

If you're prepared to interfere with the optics:
You can put a variably misfocussing layer about where the aperture would be, and objects at differences will be differently misfocussed, and you can extract that by looking at a DFT of the signal - a broader spectrum, the bigger effect the misfocussing had, and therefore the nearer/further/can-you-tell-I'm-not-an-expert the object is. The drawback of this is that you're getting a deliberately misfocussed image.

No, image-splitters aren't a silver bullet solution to the above, as that means you're only getting a fraction of the light through each light path. There are always compromises.

These things have radars, the simplest solution is always to just use the radar.
 
If they exists someone should be able to find a patent or a paper or a reference describing how they work somewhere, passive ranging is big for military platforms as you can range without the target realising they are being ranged.

I did a lot of looking back in the day when when were debating it a lot but didn't find anything, and we've been able to find leaked manuals and patents etc for a lot of the features of the ATFLIR, but nothing related to passive ranging.
 
jarlrmai said:
I did a lot of looking back in the day when when were debating it a lot but didn't find anything, and we've been able to find leaked manuals and patents etc for a lot of the features of the ATFLIR, but nothing related to passive ranging.
Click to expand...
If passive ranging does in fact exist, and is used by ATFLIR, the lack of public information about it tends to suggest that it is still highly classified. In which case Graves and all his leaky buddies should be in the brig.
 
Passive ranging is definitely a thing, and the fact that three USAF/Navy pilots (out of 3 who publicly talked about GoFast, to my knowledge) mention it, is evidence for its existence in targeting pods.

From this paper (after a very quick Google search):

External Quote:

"Abstract: The primary purpose of passive tracking function is to support weapon systems on the military aircraft. A ground-attacking aircraft must know the precise location of the target to fulfill its missions. The target tracking system must estimate location of the target passively, if the need of stealth performance is highly required. A target is designated using integrated sensors, such as Helmet Mounted Sights, Laser Designators, FLIR (Forward-Looking Infrared Radar), IRSTs (Infra-Red Search and Track), and RF Precision Direction Finding Equipments. These sensors can accurately provide the LOS (Line Of Sight) angle measurements to a ground target passively, but they cannot provide a measurement of range which is required to determine the location of targets on the ground. However, by using of stored digital terrain data, the target's location can be calculated. The digital terrain aided passive target tracking algorithm consists of the LOS intersection algorithm and the Kalman Filter."
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5334728
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mendel said:
One method is triangulation, assuming a constant-velocity target and an accelerating observation platform not moving straight towards the target.

Another method is using atmosphere interactions, i.e. absorption and diffraction: kinda like mountains in the distance look bluish; this would also reduce contrast.
Click to expand...
I always thought passive trig-based ranging might be based on the slew rate of the ATFLIR, along with the aircraft's true airspeed, which (I guess) would need to assume the object is not moving.

That might also explain why Gimbal didn't get a range reading — the ATFLIR's azimuth was slewing, but its elevation was constant, giving the system less information to work with. Also in the case of Gimbal the F-18 was headed more directly (and increasingly) toward the target, as opposed to taking a path past and well above it.
 
TheCholla said:
Passive ranging is definitely a thing, and the fact that three USAF/Navy pilots (out of 3 who publicly talked about GoFast, to my knowledge) mention it, is evidence for its existence in targeting pods.

From this paper (after a very quick Google search):

External Quote:

"Abstract: The primary purpose of passive tracking function is to support weapon systems on the military aircraft. A ground-attacking aircraft must know the precise location of the target to fulfill its missions. The target tracking system must estimate location of the target passively, if the need of stealth performance is highly required. A target is designated using integrated sensors, such as Helmet Mounted Sights, Laser Designators, FLIR (Forward-Looking Infrared Radar), IRSTs (Infra-Red Search and Track), and RF Precision Direction Finding Equipments. These sensors can accurately provide the LOS (Line Of Sight) angle measurements to a ground target passively, but they cannot provide a measurement of range which is required to determine the location of targets on the ground. However, by using of stored digital terrain data, the target's location can be calculated. The digital terrain aided passive target tracking algorithm consists of the LOS intersection algorithm and the Kalman Filter."
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5334728
Click to expand...
Yeah that works in A/G mode, but this is A/A with an air target.
 
TheCholla said:
Passive ranging is definitely a thing, and the fact that three USAF/Navy pilots (out of 3 who publicly talked about GoFast, to my knowledge) mention it, is evidence for its existence in targeting pods.

From this paper (after a very quick Google search):

External Quote:

"Abstract: The primary purpose of passive tracking function is to support weapon systems on the military aircraft. A ground-attacking aircraft must know the precise location of the target to fulfill its missions. The target tracking system must estimate location of the target passively, if the need of stealth performance is highly required. A target is designated using integrated sensors, such as Helmet Mounted Sights, Laser Designators, FLIR (Forward-Looking Infrared Radar), IRSTs (Infra-Red Search and Track), and RF Precision Direction Finding Equipments. These sensors can accurately provide the LOS (Line Of Sight) angle measurements to a ground target passively, but they cannot provide a measurement of range which is required to determine the location of targets on the ground. However, by using of stored digital terrain data, the target's location can be calculated. The digital terrain aided passive target tracking algorithm consists of the LOS intersection algorithm and the Kalman Filter."
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5334728
Click to expand...
That's only for ground targets, so is unrelated to what GoFast used.
 
I know, this was in response to the question from a few posts above, whether passive ranging exists.

What it does in air-to-air is unclear. Maybe it's not that inaccurate. But there is no evidence this is from radar, while there are it's an estimate from the FLIR.
 
I really don't see how any form of passive ranging would work in this situation. Using angles only works if you know how fast it's moving, or how high it is.

Using "pixel contrast" might be a misunderstanding. Pixel contrast is used for passive 2D tracking - that gives you a line of sight, but not distance. I can't see it getting anything more than a very rough estimate of distance from this video.
 
Yes, a very rough estimate, exactly what Graves said.

So to be clear, you consider it's from radar and very precise?
 
Edward Current said:
I always thought passive trig-based ranging might be based on the slew rate of the ATFLIR, along with the aircraft's true airspeed, which (I guess) would need to assume the object is not moving.
Click to expand...
You can range a stationary object from any moving platform (that is not moving toward the object).
You can range a constant-velocity object from any accelerating platform (same condition).
Edward Current said:
That might also explain why Gimbal didn't get a range reading — the ATFLIR's azimuth was slewing, but its elevation was constant, giving the system less information to work with. Also in the case of Gimbal the F-18 was headed more directly (and increasingly) toward the target, as opposed to taking a path past and well above it.
Click to expand...
kinda ironic when you did get a trig-based range from GIMBAL (that @TheCholla rejects)
 
What does that have to do with the discussion? There is no such thing as a trig-based range for Gimbal, simply reconstructions with trajectory estimates at certain distances, based on lines of sight. This is off-topic.
 
TheCholla said:
What does that have to do with the discussion? There is no such thing as a trig-based range for Gimbal, simply reconstructions with trajectory estimates at certain distances, based on lines of sight. This is off-topic.
Click to expand...
That's exactly how trig-based passive ranging works.

Article:
This example illustrates how to track targets using passive angle-only measurements from a single sensor. Passive angle-only measurements contain azimuth and elevation of a target with respect to the sensor. The absence of range measurements makes the problem challenging as the targets to be tracked are fully observable only under certain conditions.

In this example, you learn about some possible solutions to this problem by using a passive infrared sensor mounted on a maneuvering platform. [...]

Theoretical results imply that the target state is unobservable until the following conditions are met [1].
• The sensor must out-maneuver the target i.e. the sensor motion must be at least 1 order higher than the target. For example, if a target is traveling at constant velocity, the observer must have at least a constant acceleration.
• The component of sensor maneuver perpendicular to line of sight must be non-zero.

in GIMBAL, the observer flies a curved track, which provides the acceleration; the assumption of a constant velocity track allowed @Edward Current to compute the range as ~30nm. As you can see in my quote, that's an assumption such a system would have to make to arrive at a result.

You've rejected this assumption in favor of the J-Hook trajectory, which produces the range you want to see. This handily demonstrates the limits of trig-based passive ranging.
 
TheCholla said:
From this paper (after a very quick Google search):
External Quote:
"Abstract: The primary purpose of passive tracking function is to support weapon systems on the military aircraft. A ground-attacking aircraft must know the precise location of the target to fulfill its missions. The target tracking system must estimate location of the target passively, if the need of stealth performance is highly required. A target is designated using integrated sensors, such as Helmet Mounted Sights, Laser Designators, FLIR (Forward-Looking Infrared Radar), IRSTs (Infra-Red Search and Track), and RF Precision Direction Finding Equipments. These sensors can accurately provide the LOS (Line Of Sight) angle measurements to a ground target passively, but they cannot provide a measurement of range which is required to determine the location of targets on the ground. However, by using of stored digital terrain data, the target's location can be calculated. The digital terrain aided passive target tracking algorithm consists of the LOS intersection algorithm and the Kalman Filter."
Click to expand...
(My added emphasis)

Agree with @jarlrmai / Mick West's comments on this (and @TheCholla responding that they were pointing out that passive rangefinding is a useable technology).
But the rangefinding of a ground target referred to in the quoted paper relies on the system having a software model of the terrain, and there's no equivalent model of the sky for obvious reasons.

The F/A-18 has an air-intercept radar, the ATFLIR's primary role is in air-to-ground attacks/ recce but it can be slaved to radar or manually steered to inspect air targets.
I would guess ATFLIR effectively has passive tracking once it has a target in view; the software simply (ahem) has to keep the target, an area of contrast (i.e. cooler or warmer than the background), in view, but this doesn't establish range.
 
@Mendel your point is? Trig-based passive ranging, including from Edward Current for Gimbal (if we can call this "passive ranging"), is imprecise for air-to-air?

Aviators agree. So what? Is the range in GoFast from radar, or passive ranging? Is it precise?
 
TheCholla said:
@Mendel your point is? Trig-based passive ranging, including from Edward Current for Gimbal (if we can call this "passive ranging"), is imprecise for air-to-air?
Click to expand...
No, that wasn't my point.
Please review post #506 ( https://www.metabunk.org/threads/go...e-stars-academy-bird-balloon.9569/post-328372 ), and if anything in it remains unclear, please quote the part you're having difficulty with, and ask your question.
TheCholla said:
Aviators agree. So what? Is the range in GoFast from radar, or passive ranging? Is it precise?
Click to expand...
If this is a quiz, what prize can I win? ;)
 
I'm trying to see if any of you has evidence for the claim that is often made around here, that the range has to be from radar.
Got my answer.
 
TheCholla said:
I'm trying to see if any of you has evidence for the claim that is often made around here, that the range has to be from radar.
Got my answer.
Click to expand...
yeah, back in post #490

jarlrmai said:
Leaked ATFLIR manual: "The radar system provides the functions listed below: a. air target range, range rate"

1732265743632.png


Obviously later/different versions of the system may perform in different ways.
Click to expand...
so where's the evidence that the ATFLIR does passive ranging in air-to-air mode?
 
Mendel said:
yeah, back in post #490


so where's the evidence that the ATFLIR does passive ranging in air-to-air mode?
Click to expand...

I would also like to know more about the specific type of passive ranging it supposedly uses.

Looking for mentions of passive ranging using FLIR I found mentions of two methods. First is stereo from multiple FLIR pods (presumably on different aircraft or vehicles). Second is an estimate based on knowing the actual size of the target, comparing that to the size of the image captured by the FLIR. Neither would work in this case. One FLIR and a target of unknown size.
 
Many decades ago, at college, I used a stereoscope to map terrain. By viewing pairs of images which are separated by a suitable baseline, it is possible to create your own estimate of the height of terrain features using a special arrangement of lenses and your own two eyes and visual system. It is surprisingly accurate.

A stereoscope.
3-s2.02.jpg

These pairs of images are often taken sequentially by a single camera on board an aircraft moving across the terrain; so long as the images are separated by a suitable distance you can get a virtual baseline which creates a nice 3D image. Note, however, the two images are taken at different times, so if anything moves in that interval, it will give a false reading.

An object high above the terrain, such as the UAP in GOFAST, could be observed using a virtual baseline using a single camera, and the height (and range) of that object could be accurately estimated, if and only if that object were stationary. If the ATFLIR system can do passive range finding using a virtual baseline, it would only work if the object were stationary.
 
TheCholla said:
Passive ranging is definitely a thing, and the fact that three USAF/Navy pilots (out of 3 who publicly talked about GoFast, to my knowledge) mention it, is evidence for its existence in targeting pods.
Click to expand...
I don't know if that comment is aimed at me, but I think it should be evident from #494 that I don't reject the possibility of passive ranging for ground targets. I don't even reject it for aerial targets in some cases, e.g. where the size of the target is known. I just question its relevance to a case like Gofast. More specifically, in #493 I doubted the feasibility of ranging by 'pixel contrast' in cases where the actual surface features of the target are unknown. I don't think anyone has answered that point.

Incidentally, in the Gofast video the RNG figure is given to one decimal place, which changes several times. One decimal place is not very precise, but it may still be unrealistic for any of the passive ranging methods suggested for air-to-air cases.

Incidentally, in part of the FLIR1 video a range figure is also shown, but it is the nonsense figure of 99.9. If I recall correctly, there was some discussion among pilots as to whether the target was trying to jam their radar, one comment being that the radar 'just couldn't hack it'. This suggests that at least in FLIR1 the pilots thought the RNG figures would normally come from radar. There was no mention of passive ranging.
 
Eburacum said:
An object high above the terrain, such as the UAP in GOFAST, could be observed using a virtual baseline using a single camera, and the height (and range) of that object could be accurately estimated, if and only if that object were stationary. If the ATFLIR system can do passive range finding using a virtual baseline, it would only work if the object were stationary.
Click to expand...
This is only true for an observer moving at constant velocity.
An accelerated observer (e.g. on a track that is not straight) can range a constant-velocity target trigonometrically with [edit: more than 2] observations. If the acceleration varies, the observer can range a constant-acceleration target, etc. (The source I linked before explains this.)
 
Last edited:
It strikes me that an aircraft on a track that is not straight, attempting to track and range a distant object which may or may not be on a straight-line path, is exactly the situation we find in the GIMBAL clip.

It almost seems as if both GOFAST and GIMBAL were ranging exercises. Both on the same flight, too.
 
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
453
Duke
Duke
Candycane7
Video: triangle light formation going fast across the night sky 2024-10-31
Replies
4
Views
736
Tezcatlipoca
T

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top