Makes sense. We only know the altitude of the object is stable so it is moving in a plane parallel to the surface. The cos(left) assumes we know it is moving parallel to the jet but this may not be the case, though it seems to be if you look at the movement of the sea compared to the movement of the object.
Note that the jet is only flying straight and level with the ATFLIR locked for just 4-5 seconds (from 1:35-1:39 in the 'official' video). Most of the time it is banking left, which would considerably tilt the reference plane of the ATFLIR. I cannot immediately see whether you took this effect into account, just a heads-up...
I can confirm that the left bank will reduce the speed of the object. I cranked in a guess of 1 m/s^2 left turn and reduced the object speed to 50 kts.
James Thorpe on FB noted a different way of calculating the position of the target, assuming it is not moving.
Black triangle is in the horizontal plane. Distances are in meters. A to B is the movement of the plane between when the angle is 43, and when it's 57
The other angle at B is 180-57 = 123. The last angle (C) in the black triangle is hence (180-1230-43) = 14. The lengths of the other two sides can be calculated as 3610/sin(14 degrees)*sin(43 degree) = 10177 and 3610/sin(14 degrees)*sin(123 degree) = 12514
However this put the range at 13.9km = 7.5 NM, when the "RNG" is reading 4.4 NM.
The sensor is 640x480, but the video may only show a square 480x480 part of it. We've debated whether the narrow (NAR) FOV is 0.7 degrees, 1 degree, or 1.5 degrees based on several sources.
I read the brochure and some of the others posted here. Mostly they're over my head.
I'm looking for the simple ATFLIR camera numbers that I can plug into a "3ds Max Camera" in order to recreate the scene in 3D:
Obviously, these elementary details are not available to the public. If they were I guess the dizzying array of math calculations here wouldn't be quite as necessary. I say that with the utmost respect.
In the meantime....fun to look at but perhaps a futile effort (someone on Reddit apparently took the obvious road and tweeted at Raytheon asking for the specs of the camera), I stabilized the better resolution WAPO version of the video:
I think I see what is going on here once I realized that the blue triangle is slanted down toward the object. Looks like they too are assuming level flight (easiest assumption). Any path connecting the 13, 923 line with the 12,275 line will represent a trajectory constant with the angular measurements. So put a point on the 13,923 line 8150 meters [4.4 nautical miles] from A and on place another 6300 meters [3.4 nautical miles] from B on the blue line labeled 12,275 and connect the two new points with a line. The red line is a path that is consistent with the angles and distances.
I think I see what is going on here once I realized that the blue triangle is slanted down toward the object. Looks like they too are assuming level flight (easiest assumption). Any path connecting the 13, 923 line with the 12,275 line will represent a trajectory constant with the angular measurements. So put a point on the 13,923 line 8150 meters [4.4 nautical miles] from A and on place another 6300 meters [3.4 nautical miles] from B on the blue line labeled 12,275 and connect the two new points with a line. The red line is a path that is consistent with the angles and distances.
I read the brochure and some of the others posted here. Mostly they're over my head.
I'm looking for the simple ATFLIR camera numbers that I can plug into a "3ds Max Camera" in order to recreate the scene in 3D:
Obviously, these elementary details are not available to the public. If they were I guess the dizzying array of math calculations here wouldn't be quite as necessary. I say that with the utmost respect.
Some Albatross research (assuming this is still an option)
The maximum documented speed for an Albatross I found is 104 mph, stated in this study.
measurements of one grey-headed albatross during an Antarctic storm showed that the bird travelled for 9 h at ground speeds of between 110 kph (30.5 m s−1) and 168 kph (46.7 m s−1).
168 kph = 104 mph
The Albatross is not native to the North American East Coast. However, the ranges of long-distance fliers are quite variable and accordingly there are dozens of sightings of Albatross along the East Coast, including at least one shot by a hunter . This study catalogues 171 observed Albatross, 13 in Florida:
While rare, I suspect Albatross are much more common than extraterrestrial aircraft.
The Albatross flies in what's called dynamic soaring, depicted here:
So the question arises if the object in the Go-Fast video could be an Albatross based on its flight path. The question would be if during a 30-second snapshot an Albatross could maintain a fairly straight flightpath. I suspect the answer is yes.
Some Albatross research (assuming this is still an option)
The maximum documented speed for an Albatross I found is 104 mph, stated in this study.
measurements of one grey-headed albatross during an Antarctic storm showed that the bird travelled for 9 h at ground speeds of between 110 kph (30.5 m s−1) and 168 kph (46.7 m s−1).
168 kph = 104 mph
The Albatross is not native to the North American East Coast. However, the ranges of long-distance fliers are quite variable and accordingly there are dozens of sightings of Albatross along the East Coast, including at least one shot by a hunter . This study catalogues 171 observed Albatross, 13 in Florida:
While rare, I suspect Albatross are much more common than extraterrestrial aircraft.
The Albatross flies in what's called dynamic soaring, depicted here:
So the question arises if the object in the Go-Fast video could be an Albatross based on its flight path. The question would be if during a 30-second snapshot an Albatross could maintain a fairly straight flightpath. I suspect the answer is yes.
The dynamic soaring pattern in the graph is close to the water, not two miles high. Do albatrosses fly high? It could be another bird, though I'm not convinced that a bird would look colder than water in IR.
The dynamic soaring pattern in the graph is close to the water, not two miles high. Do albatrosses fly high? It could be another bird, though I'm not convinced that it would look cooler than water in IR.
I think temperature could for sure be lower then the surface water being that the bird can fly as fast as 100 mph and would be getting air cooled then. However it would need to be able to fly for at least 30 secs in a straight line which should not be impossible for it to do. And relatively high altitude of 2 miles which seems like the only harder part to explain..
To tie this to the Nimitz video, notice how the WSO was able to manually slew the camera and acquire the target after a couple of tries. This should've been trivial to do in the Nimitz video when it broke lock at the end.
The dynamic soaring pattern in the graph is close to the water, not two miles high. Do albatrosses fly high? It could be another bird, though I'm not convinced that a bird would look colder than water in IR.
To tie this to the Nimitz video, notice how the WSO was able to manually slew the camera and acquire the target after a couple of tries. This should've been trivial to do in the Nimitz video when it broke lock at the end.
In the last part of the Nimitz video a range indication pops up: 99.9 RNG 99.
I wonder what that means. Maybe the WSO tries a radar lock but the radar basically indicates 'out of range'?
In the GO FAST video the ATFLIR lock is immediately accompanied by a range and closure speed indication. This could mean the radar first locks on to the target and the ATFLIR follows the radar's directions?
The dynamic soaring pattern in the graph is close to the water, not two miles high. Do albatrosses fly high? It could be another bird, though I'm not convinced that a bird would look colder than water in IR.
JFDee posted this footage as an attachment, which I've converted to a GIF animation:
The gull is cooler than land, but warmer than sky. If the ocean was reflecting the sky's temperature, you're probably right.
So, imo, the next non-extraordinary option to consider is a weather balloon recently released, and so still climbing to its upper altitude. A balloon also fits the shape of the thermal signature. Take for example:
I can confirm that the left bank will reduce the speed of the object. I cranked in a guess of 1 m/s^2 left turn and reduced the object speed to 50 kts.
I also found a huge effect from adding in the left turn on the two point analysis. Here's the plane's flight in a straight line (green), and the same distance with a very slight left turn (red). The two sight lines at 43° and 57° are shown. The initial 43° is unchanged, but the the 57° changes significantly.
The blue line (F-G) shows the horizontal path of the target assuming straight line of the jet
With the slight left turn, this now becomes the very different short orange line.
This animation shows the effect of varying the turn rate on the calculated speed. The blue line is the simple two point analysis with jet traveling in a straight line. The orange line is with a variety of turn rates from the jet.
The minimum is around 270m in 19 seconds, about 28 knots, 32mph.
The bank angle of the jet varies though. So a more sophisticated analysis might reveal more.
So, imo, the next non-extraordinary option to consider is a weather balloon recently released, and so still climbing to its upper altitude. A balloon also fits the shape of the thermal signature.
Hi everyone. I just joined after reading up on this subject after becoming extremely skeptical of Tom DeLonge's "To The Stars" companies and their intentions, and the implication of Helene Cooper, Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean (of the New York Times) in what appears to be promotion of Tom's business venture.
I don't have much to add outside of the great work already done by everyone else, just came to say I sent in a FOIA request to the Defense Intelligence Agency asking for the full videos being used by the New York Times and Tom DeLonge's companies.
As others have said, I suspect these are routine training videos where young pilots are testing target lock systems. You can take almost any video like this and splice it to seem like the pilots "don't know what they targeted" and are "extra shocked" because often they don't unless they get closer, and often are excited they achieved a target lock on something as stupid as a bird. Imagine your reaction if you, a new pilot flying a fighter jet, were able to get a multimillion dollar laser target lock device to lock onto an albatross or weather balloon.
If the objects in these videos were perceived as threats or truly unidentified objects the size of an aircraft, they wouldn't be sending young pilots out on training missions, un-armed, to intercept them. And they certainly wouldn't be de-classifying and releasing the videos. Add to that the fact that these videos allegedly came out of an agency which was nothing but a pork project for US Sen. Harry Reid to give his friend and fellow UFO enthusiast, Robert Bigelow, a boatload of cash. The whole concept is just ridiculous.
Hi everyone. I just joined after reading up on this subject after becoming extremely skeptical of Tom DeLonge's "To The Stars" companies and their intentions, and the implication of Helene Cooper, Ralph Blumenthal and Leslie Kean (of the New York Times) in what appears to be promotion of Tom's business venture.
I don't have much to add outside of the great work already done by everyone else, just came to say I sent in a FOIA request to the Defense Intelligence Agency asking for the full videos being used by the New York Times and Tom DeLonge's companies.
You need not bother filing any request. As I just wrote on my Bad UFOs Blog, dozens of such requests have already been filed by UFO researchers and by reporters. Nobody has turned up anything so far, they are all coming back "no records."
From a graph in this study it looks like with no wind a 1-meter radius helium weather balloon @ 10,000 ft would ascend around 383 ft over 30 seconds or if it was hydrogen filled would ascend around 433 ft over 30 seconds. The fact that the study says, "We will assume throughout this paper that there is no wind, so that the balloon velocity is vertical," implies that wind can have a considerable impact on ascent rate. I'd presume that impact would be to reduce the ascent rate. Looking at the sea surface in the Go Fast video, I'd say there's significant wind occurring.
Here's a graphed helium weather-balloon ascent case study:
The range relevant to our analysis is, I believe (if I follow, the Go Fast object is around 10,000 ft), at the edge of the uncontrolled-ascent phase, zone 1. The ascent during 30 seconds with high winds might be trivial or even too small to detect on the ATFLIR.
To confidently recreate the scene in 3D I really am going to need that cmos/ccd image sensor size.
Here is the first stage at setting up the 3D. For now the camera is just perpendicular to the ocean surface and I started with plugging in 1050mm for the focal length, you can see the camera settings highlighted in red.
Also, I saw the RNG in some of the math equations, can someone explain what it is? And what is the Vc?
RNG is the distance to the target, presumably in nautical miles
Vc is the closing velocity, presumably in knots. i.e. the component of the relative velocity of the object parallel to the line of sight.
Here is the first stage at setting up the 3D. For now the camera is just perpendicular to the ocean surface and I started with plugging in 1050mm for the focal length, you can see the camera settings highlighted in red.
RNG is the distance to the target, presumably in nautical miles
Vc is the closing velocity, presumably in knots. i.e. the component of the relative velocity of the object parallel to the line of sight.
Ok, that's what I thought, range. I read someplace, maybe Reddit, that ATFLIR couldn't discern distance. I didn't really question it, but in hindsight that seem absurd.
So basically, at this focal length/fov and if the thing is 3-4 miles away it really isn't that big?
The fact that the study says, "We will assume throughout this paper that there is no wind, so that the balloon velocity is vertical," implies that wind can have a considerable impact on ascent rate.
No I don't think that is what is implied. A typical ascent rate would be around 5 m/s although it can be adjusted by the amount of gas it is filled with. In strong winds you might want to overfill it so that it does not disappear behind a mountain, for example. The ascent rate is independent of wind speed, although its actual velocity is the vector sum of the vertical ascent rate and horizontal wind velocity.
Yes, I've been following along, but I see the math and become simultaneously intrigued and discouraged.
Things don't start to gel until I try a practical approach for myself.
Applying a -26° angle and changing the FOV to .7 drops the sphere in my Max scene down to a 1'-2' radius.
I'm not sure why TTSA is pushing this video.
But, I would like to get an approach down because Mr. Elizondo has said there are about 24 other UFO videos being declassified for release to the public in the coming months.
No I don't think that is what is implied. A typical ascent rate would be around 5 m/s although it can be adjusted by the amount of gas it is filled with. In strong winds you might want to overfill it so that it does not disappear behind a mountain, for example. The ascent rate is independent of wind speed, although its actual velocity is the vector sum of the vertical ascent rate and horizontal wind velocity.
Essentially the same size as a weather balloon like the one above.
Gas released from a pressurized tank can be freezing cold. I wonder if that would cause the gas in a recently filled weather balloon to be markedly colder than the surrounding atmosphere, like Go Fast. In a quick search I didn't find such a weather balloon imaged on FLIR.
. This study catalogues 171 observed Albatross, 13 in Florida:
