Ann K
Senior Member.
Bears repeating! Thanks.This thread is about discussing the video footage, not Corbell's claims about the video footage.
Bears repeating! Thanks.This thread is about discussing the video footage, not Corbell's claims about the video footage.
But that does not explain... the color change
It seems roughly equivalent to a levels adjustment... ...I think this adjustment is automatic.
Both quotes are from Bruce M, in page 20 and 19 of the thread respectively.
I agree that the ability to rapidly change temperatures is beyond what is currently possible with our technology (at least publicly). However we don't know if the object is changing temperature or using some sort of other EM means (jamming) to confuse the sensor. I am sure the DoD has been researching countermeasures for IR targeting though, as having a aircraft that is immune to things like stinger missiles would be a obvious line of research/development.It isn't an innate feature of the jellyfish.
To put it mildly, it seems unlikely that the jellyfish could, in real time, proportionately raise and lower the IR emissions/ reflectivity of everything in the visible environment at the same time as altering its own (therefore remaining eminently visible in IR), which would be an extraordinarily energetic process. There are others here with a decent knowledge of physics, but off the top of my head I doubt this would be even theoretically possible from a small localised source (particularly when it comes to cooling large areas). Inverse square law and all that.
You are missing the point. Approach this case from the point of view of a intelligence officer not a debunker. You think a IC officer getting a report like this with accompanying video would ignore the witnesses because witness testimony is anecdotal?Wow - didn't see that bit in the video, can you link to a timecode? Or is it more 'trust me, bro' evidence?
No one said they were lying. They could be mistaken. And it's court-martial.You are missing the point. Approach this case from the point of view of a intelligence officer not a debunker. You think a IC officer getting a report like this with accompanying video would ignore the witnesses because witness testimony is anecdotal?
No, they would assume the troops were telling the truth because lying like that would be grounds for court marshal. Maybe the witnesses were confused by what they saw and misinterpreted, but IMHO the likelihood that they just "made it up" to make the story more spooky is near zero.
If so it's singularly unsuccessful; the object remains visible throughout.However we don't know if the object is changing temperature or using some sort of other EM means (jamming) to confuse the sensor.
why is the object changing from black to white? Have you observed this before?
This has been explained many times.
Not bird crap
Not drone
Not balloon
That is all we really know.
Maybe it is some sort of advanced drone
Approach this case from the point of view of a intelligence officer not a debunker.
Where? By whom? Balloons seem to be the general consensus here, at this point. Are you referring to something that happened on another forum? If so, can you share it?Balloons have been pretty much debunked.
Can you explain the limits on possible shapes for balloons or balloon clusters and why that rules this object out?The shape is not right for a balloon/cluster.
If it's hostile, it wouldn't have passed by low over a random American base, that's just begging something to go wrong and suddenly your opponent has access to your "Infrared jamming drone" whatever that means. If it's friendly, you either wouldn't use it over your own base or you wouldn't use it on foreign soil.Maybe it is some sort of advanced drone given to Iran from Russia, and the technology is unacknowledged by both superpowers.
This isn't an official government report. This is a nameless source telling a story to a reporter/UFO enthusiast, and then that reporter telling a story of that story to the public in the form of a segment on a show. If I were an IC officer and the report I got was anything like the TMZ video then I would tell the soldier to report back to the infirmary for the head injury they got.You think a IC officer getting a report like this with accompanying video would ignore the witnesses because witness testimony is anecdotal?
It is clearly not a typical drone like a quadcopter. But when I say "advanced drone" I just mean some sort of unmanned remote controlled aircraft. It is too small to be manned, so if it is some sort of exotic non-public technology from Russia it would still be a drone.What persuaded you, in the less than 24 hours between these posts, to change your opinion?
I haven't seen any new info or discussion that realistically makes a drone more likely.
That technology is not new, it's called "incendiary bomb". Napalm will heat a large area right up. The constraint here is that heat is a form of energy, so you need a system capable of delivering that, and a bunch of floating balloons does not have the capacity to store and transport the energy that is meant to be converted to heat.I agree that the ability to rapidly change temperatures is beyond what is currently possible with our technology (at least publicly).
Yes, we know that, because we can see it's not doing that.However we don't know if the object is changing temperature or using some sort of other EM means (jamming) to confuse the sensor.
Obviously a fighter jet engine releases much more heat than a bunch of wind-driven balloons, and thus its IR signature stands out much more. Floating objects do not promise new insights into dissipating heat from aircraft propulsion systems.I am sure the DoD has been researching countermeasures for IR targeting though, as having a aircraft that is immune to things like stinger missiles would be a obvious line of research/development.
If you have been following the Ukraine war, Iran is selling drones to Russia.Maybe it is some sort of advanced drone given to Iran from Russia, and the technology is unacknowledged by both superpowers.
"aircraft" implies lifting surfaces (wings etc.) of any kind — the things that jellyfish and balloons do not have.It is clearly not a typical drone like a quadcopter. But when I say "advanced drone" I just mean some sort of unmanned remote controlled aircraft. It is too small to be manned, so if it is some sort of exotic non-public technology from Russia it would still be a drone.
And maybe it's those pesky leprechauns, if we are playing story-time again. How about a smidgen of evidence before going all sci-fi on us? We are trying to find the best fit with the evidence on hand.Maybe it is some sort of advanced drone given to Iran from Russia, and the technology is unacknowledged by both superpowers.
It has repeatedly been explained that the object is NOT changing temperature. You post is inaccurate, speculative, and in violation of posting guidelines, and I'm suspending you from this thread.I agree that the ability to rapidly change temperatures is beyond what is currently possible with our technology (at least publicly). However we don't know if the object is changing temperature or using some sort of other EM means (jamming) to confuse the sensor. I am sure the DoD has been researching countermeasures for IR targeting though, as having a aircraft that is immune to things like stinger missiles would be a obvious line of research/development.
Maybe it is some sort of advanced drone given to Iran from Russia, and the technology is unacknowledged by both superpowers.
your video the one you saw did you say it was 14 minutes or longerat least 17 minutes from when they were looking at the object
This is such a great version of the video. Not sure what other 'analysis' is needed to see relatively clearly (just look at 0:09) that these are balloons or something very similar of the sort.That would take a while as you'd have to keyframe the entire thing manually. But here's on I stabilized on the yellow IR box.
View attachment 65030
Because nobody camouflages a soldier by tying an elephant to them.Why can it not be a camouflaged drone?
So why would you "camouflage" it? at night? in a way that does not interfere with lift? or the field of view of the camera? and then why operate it such that you give up the advantage of speed and manoeuverability and imitate a wind-driven object at an altitude where your camera won't show you much?I've only got experience with a dji mini but it can fly 30mins and is small enough that the heat from it would be difficult to see in thermals.
Probably worth naming and quoting him, for the sake of completeness.... One problem is there is a well known UFO community member who is frequently cited as a US military IR camera expert claiming the opposite, and has doubled down even when it's pointed out that he's wrong.
Well, it wasn't exactly an elephant, but I recall there was some similar trickery at Troy!Because nobody camouflages a soldier by tying an elephant to them.
Why can it not be a camouflaged drone?
The AVT in this system went out of production in 2015. I dont know how much before that it was designed, but it was many years. And it was designed as a stand alone COTS item, and wasnt made with this particular camera in mind.Locking on mechanisms aren't magic, they don't have a little guy inside them that has the mind of a human and realizes what are valuable things to lock on. They are made to lock on to possible threats, these will likely be emitting heat and will stand out to the environment, this object does not stand out, it's possible the camera simply didn't find it notable enough to be a target to lock on.
Also note - at no time do they try to track the object in the video that is shown. Its not known if it would have worked or not(though I suspect not).
I was thinking more in the sense that things you generally want to track (I called them threats but maybe it wasn't the correct word for it) will tend to emit heat (people, cars, etc.) while the environment will tend to not, so the pixels from objects that emit heat will stand out to the rest which sounds like something that would be considered when developing (or deciding to use) a tracking system.It doesnt lock onto 'threats'. It locks onto pixels that stand out from other pixels. If there is a consistent edge to the object, on a plain background, it tracks well. If the background is complicated, with lots of changing scene, and the desired target doesnt have a distinctive edge, then tracking is hard. There is no little man inside to read the operators mind to determine what it is that should be tracked
That's interesting to know, thanks for the informative post.Note that this tracker is also used on the colour daylight camera. So its not a heat detecting tracker, just a pixel detecting tracker.
Really depends on the environment. I've seen attempts to track a humvee in Utah that just couldnt get a lock in IR. It was too close to the surrounding heat of the terrain.I was thinking more in the sense that things you generally want to track will tend to emit heat (people, cars, etc.) while the environment will tend to not, so the pixels from objects that emit heat will stand out to the rest which sounds like something that would be considered when developing (or deciding to use) a tracking system.
Dave FalchProbably worth naming and quoting him, for the sake of completeness...
No sorry I meant camouflaged by the jellyfish netting. I'm saying the person who released the object wanted it to be seen by the camera to distract the camera operator.If you mean IR-camouflaged, it's been pointed out a couple of times that the MX-20 system had no trouble imaging it with an IR camera.
But we don't see any evidence of maneuvering at all, so there is no particular reason to suspect a drone with propulsion.With a drone you can control its trajectory and height a lot easier than balloons. To not interfere with lift you could attach very small helium filled balloons, and that way you could attach the netting to it. The dji mini weighs 200g. The purpose of the netting is to make it look weird so you can distract the camera operator while doing something else ie moving weapons or a vehicle. The camera is not required, it can be flown via gps and pre routed.
Ah, thank you for the clarification.I meant camouflaged by the jellyfish netting. I'm saying the person who released the object wanted it to be seen by the camera to distract the camera operator
... and I'd already deleted the originals. No great loss though.however attachments uploaded today will be lost.
They'd also throw a lot of turbulent air down towards the static streamers/legs/things.Quadcopter drones also produce a decent amount of heat in the motors in each corner and the central battery, which would likely be apparent in the IR camera.
It's not a scene auto gain/level- nothing else changes but the object!
Your picture edits are always appreciated!No great loss though.
I wonder if what plays into the thought process is that it's such a small field of view that there's not much to compare with changing colour. By the time the colours changed there's new things in the scene of new colour and all the old colours have left the view.This is contrary to what is easily observable by any reasonable person. A black=white statement... literally.