Yes, it uses the speed of the jet and the bank angle. It also adds wind. However that's a constant. You could remove it. Here's one with zero wind.Forgive me if I'm being obtuse.
This is a reasonable calculation of the distance and direction of the jet from the beginning of the video to the end based on the on-screen data?
First of all, the document you link to is an older generation ATFLIR, the NITE-Hawk. Instead of doubling the FOV from 1.5 to 3.0, you may need to cut it in half to 0.7.
I think I can prove it's nearer to 0.7°. Notice during one of the fast camera movements, starting around 8 seconds in, the heading angle goes from 39 to 40. On the first frame when it's 40, there's a distinctive black streak.When I finally made what I consider to be a close approximation to the video in Blender the parallax looks closest with a fov of 0.7
Ought not the non-tracked segments produce a difference in the graphing, something roughly like this?And what you see there is mostly NOT the object moving. It's the parallax from the camera approximately tracking the ocean, and the motion of the jet.
Sure, but the graph only covers the period of time when the object is tracked. Before that there's a variety of camera positions, slows drifts with ground lock, and rapid movements that would be tricky to show on this graph in any real detail. If you ignore the rapid camera movements (saccades) then the result would be something like what you show.Ought not the non-tracked segments produce a difference in the graphing, something roughly like this?
That's what happening, as far as I can tell. It's ground tracking based on the jet's speed and position. Then the pilot is presumably adjusting the camera to acquire the target.I'm not sure if the camera does some sort of auto ground tracking and then a person manually adjusts it 'ahead' of the object.
1/2 off topic : "Gimbal" is a word commonly used to designate a target approaching Az or El limits of a radar, therefore, I would not be so quick into claiming that it has anything to do with the ATFLIR pod.I wonder why Gimbal is named so appropriately and Go Fast so inappropriately. Has TTSA or Elizondo ever explained how they were named?
Well TTSA clearly though it was moving fast. There site currently says about it:I don't know why exactly and who precisely dubbed this footage "go fast" since "slow mover" would have been more adapted for this specific piece of footage. Maybe TTSA has nothing to do with this choice, maybe they do, we can only speculate for now but I think it was not a wise choice. I also think that people who are in direct contact with TTSA should ask them.
Agreed.Despite it being neither high speed nor low altitude, and not demonstrably an "aircraft".
We might be able to see winglets if zoom level was increased to 2.0 if there were some of course but there's no exhaust plume and the bogey does not seem to radiate any heat while being within the IR sensor operating range. Therefore, I don't agree with their "winglet" argument but I don't agree neither with yours because if it was an aircraft or a missile/rocket far and/or small enough to be displayed as a point target in the MWIR, we should see its heat signature if it was not a stealth aircraft or maybe a glide bomb. What we see is a "cold" target. Biological or something else like a lighter than air ?Neither of which are correct when your target is far enough away to be a dot. A moot point anyway, as the size of the object is <10 feet.
And really I should update this, as it looks like the FOV is actually 0.7 degrees. In that case the size indicated would be three feet.Size estimates. The video frame is 950 pixels across in the Washington Post version. When the object is closest (3.3 nautical miles), the object appears around 12 pixels across. Hard to say exactly. But from these numbers we can calculate the angle subtended by the object as as 12/950*1.5 degrees)
tan(12/950*1.5 degrees)*3.3 nautical miles in feet =6.6 feet
View attachment 32200
Arguably you could say it's larger, but I think if anything it's smaller, as it's very blurry.
So what birds have a 6 foot wingspan, and can fly at 13,000 feet?
(or what other object, like weather balloons).
TTSA indicates that Gimbal was the name of the file they received from the DoD. As they state on their Gimbal-video page:I wonder why Gimbal is named so appropriately and Go Fast so inappropriately. Has TTSA or Elizondo ever explained how they were named?
The FOV is set on NAR (narrow) but from my understanding of the ATFLIR pods, when it comes to zooming, we are dealing with an incremental step zoom and not a continuous zoom. In the "Go Fast" footage and unlike "Flir 1" and "Gimbal" where zoom level goes up to 2.0, in the "Go Fast" footage, zoom level is always 1.0. This is why I made my comment about the "winglets".Its 6-10 feet big if that, cold, moving slowly and at 13000 feet, as far as we can tell it is as zoomed in as that military spec IR camera can do.
Especially odd to use a different naming convention for segments from the same video. If Go Fast was named by TTSA, then perhaps the Pentagon named it Balloon or Parallax.So they're saying they didn't name it as they themselves are attempting to interpret the name. In contrast, their errant claims that the Go Fast object goes fast implies that they gave it that name.
Lol! I wouldn't be surprised. And here's another oddity. Why would Elizondo's team be speculating on why the file was named 'Gimbal' if it was something his ATIP program studied? It's as if the footage is from another department entirely, like maybe a department associated with teaching pilots about confounding screen targets.Especially odd to use a different naming convention for segments from the same video. If Go Fast was named by TTSA, then perhaps the Pentagon named it Balloon or Parallax.
I'm not sure why you say this, as they seem to behave consistently to me. It appears to be the heading and tilt angle of the target relative to the jet.I saw that you guys, specially Mick, worked really hard on what I call the SAI (Situation Awareness Indicator), that little white square seen in both "Gimbal" and "Go Fast" ATFLIR interfaces. I came to the same conclusion about "Gimbal", it cannot be displaying the azimuth of the IR camera so chances are it is displaying "True North".
It gets more complicated with "Go Fast" since the SAI seems to behave differently and to be honest, I need to work more on this issue before coming to a provisional conclusion.
Sure, let met explain, it's not related to how it "behaves" but to its position on the interface.I'm not sure why you say this, as they seem to behave consistently to me. It appears to be the heading and tilt angle of the target relative to the jet.
Indeed, with linear interpolation, -45° El would be the halfway point on the disc's radius. With spherical linear interpolation, it would be -60° El. You've divided the radius in 5 parts in your graph, so in both cases, at -28°, the dot should at least be past one of the subdivisions, yet it isn't. Maybe the distance of the dot is squared or curved in some other way?Sure, let met explain, it's not related to how it "behaves" but to its position on the interface.
It's very hard to find informations on the SAI (Situational Awareness Indicator), also called SAC ("C" as Cue) in other flight manuals (Combat sim). The only informations I found about it comes from simulators (Flight Manuals). I only uploaded one screen capture of such a manual, there's more but they all say the same thing.
View attachment 32488
When I insert a disc on the "Go Fast" footage, the Azimuth angle is not that much off (1°) but my disc might not be accurately positioned. Now comes my problem, the elevation angle is way off (-9° instead of -22°).
View attachment 32489
This is what happens when I superimpose "Gimbal" and "Go Fast" when respectively, Az is 48°L in both cases and El is -2° for "Gimbal" and -28° for "Go Fast". It looks like I have an "ok" match for "Gimbal" (point A if the SAI is not displaying true north) but again, it's way off when it comes to El angle for "Go Fast" (point B). I added a yellow point B to show where the SAI should be from my understanding and if the center of the interface represents -90° (straight below the aircraft)
View attachment 32490
I hope you guys understood why I am going through some head-scratching.
The "radius" angle is related to the aircraft bank angle. If I overlay the bank angle on the above graph:
View attachment 32304
We can see the where the bank angle is slowly decreasing towards the end, the indicator angle is decreasing - presumably because the object is getting closer.
One could subtract the two, with care. Exercise for the reader!
I admit to being a complete know-nothing when it comes to filing Freedom of Information Act requests. So how does it work exactly?
no. its publicly available information.Do they send you stuff only if you first vow that you'll only ever talk about what they send you, but you're otherwise forbidden to ever show anybody else what they send you? Or some deal like that?
you are asking him to scan the letter he received? or any responsive documents he may receive from his request?
AATIP was a DIA Program. New York Times verified this, themselves, via records obtained. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html
I might have mentioned this before, but could the Nimitz tic tac have been the same kind of thing? Cmdr. Fravor said it "mirrored" him as he circled down and it stayed on the same circle but opposite him. Perhaps it was actually at the center of the circle, and he assumed it was bigger, farther away, and moving. Then, it popped and he assumed it flew off quickly.New Summary Video, somewhat simplified and incorporating some bits from episode 4 of "Unidentified" on the history channel.