In a recent interview with Lex Fridman, pilot David Fravor was asked about how he judged the size and distance of unknown objects (in the context of some ideas I'd suggested around his account of an encounter with a UFO). His response was somewhat light on details.
My (very loose) idea regarding Fravor's encounter with a featureless Tic-Tac shaped object is basically that it was a smaller object that was closer than he thought. The main reason for suggesting this is his account of how it perfectly "mirrored" his actions -as if it knew what he was going to do. When he went down, it came up. When he went around in a circle, it went round 180° opposite him. When he flew towards it, it flew towards him. At least that's how it SEEMED.
So the idea is that, at least in the "mirroring" portion of events, Fravor was approximately doubling the size and distance estimates. When he thought it was on the other side of a circle, it was actually in the middle. When he though he was flying towards something a mile away, it was already half a mile away, and so would seem to accelerate towards him.
Hence the question: "[is it] possible that you miscalculated the size and the distance of the thing and so on when you were flying around?"
Fravor's answer is no, because of his vast experience he's 99.9% sure he did not misidentify it. But he did not give many details as to HOW he estimated the size and distance. The only substantive thing was that it was "40 feet [long] ... about hornet size." But that's a somewhat circular explanation. To know it was "about hornet size" you would have to know how far away it was. On a simple level something 20 feet long that's 10,000 feet away from you will look the same as something that's 40 feet long and 20,000 feet away.
So I mentioned this in my reaction video. But in the comments someone took issue with this, saying:
The clarity of details is not going to be measurably detectable for 10,000 - 20,000 feet.
"Complexity of reflections" makes no sense to me. So I'll await an example.
"Movement" is somewhat plausible. If you can move your head, you can get a sense of distance for nearby static objects relative to other static objects. But if the object is moving (and you don't know HOW it is moving) and you are also moving, then head motion is not likely to help with something 10-20,000 feet away.
An experiment would be great. But I don't have the means to do it at a sufficient scale. But it sounds like the type of things that people would have looked into before.
(Note: an F/A-18 hornet is 56 feet long, not 40)
02:31:01
Fridman: I hope that people, "true believers", are a little bit more open-minded to the work of Mick West. I think it's quite useful and brilliant work. So let me ask, here's a bunch of videos a bunch of ideas where he kind of suggests possible other explanations of the things that were out there he has some explanations of the things that you've seen in it with the tic tac like with your own eyes like he says that uh it's possible that you miscalculated the size and the distance of the thing and so on when you were flying around. I don't fight that as, uh, I mean, maybe you can comment on that person?
Fravor: Let me do it right now, so because that comes up like how did you know it was about 40 feet long? I go: okay, so, 16 years flying against other airplanes, know what stuff looks like. You know I've looked down on things so if I know, I know. Here's the known things I know. When we saw the tic tac I was at 20,000 feet ish right around there so, when I look down, I know what a hornet looks like looking down on him because I've done it for all those years I mean I've got a good idea, so that's that's why I said 40 feet, because it's about hornet size
so and as I go around you, you get to the point where you have to be able to judge distance when we fly, out of experience, and you can tell if something is small or big you know? So I would argue the fact of you know peer experience there's you know professional observers which is what we're actually trained to do um and having done it for so long no it was and everyone came back with the same thing they're like "yeah it was about the size of a hornet"
Fridman: From a human factors perspective how often in your experience of those 16 years do you find that [your] eyes, what you see is the incorrect state of things, so like how often do you make mistakes with vision?
Fravor: You, actually you make vision issues a lot because you're –, and the sad part is your brain believes what your eyes see. We are actually trained to do the opposite of that, especially when you instrument-fly because your brain and eyes can tell you one thing but you got to trust your instruments.
My (very loose) idea regarding Fravor's encounter with a featureless Tic-Tac shaped object is basically that it was a smaller object that was closer than he thought. The main reason for suggesting this is his account of how it perfectly "mirrored" his actions -as if it knew what he was going to do. When he went down, it came up. When he went around in a circle, it went round 180° opposite him. When he flew towards it, it flew towards him. At least that's how it SEEMED.
So the idea is that, at least in the "mirroring" portion of events, Fravor was approximately doubling the size and distance estimates. When he thought it was on the other side of a circle, it was actually in the middle. When he though he was flying towards something a mile away, it was already half a mile away, and so would seem to accelerate towards him.
Hence the question: "[is it] possible that you miscalculated the size and the distance of the thing and so on when you were flying around?"
Fravor's answer is no, because of his vast experience he's 99.9% sure he did not misidentify it. But he did not give many details as to HOW he estimated the size and distance. The only substantive thing was that it was "40 feet [long] ... about hornet size." But that's a somewhat circular explanation. To know it was "about hornet size" you would have to know how far away it was. On a simple level something 20 feet long that's 10,000 feet away from you will look the same as something that's 40 feet long and 20,000 feet away.
So I mentioned this in my reaction video. But in the comments someone took issue with this, saying:
I repliedPeople can judge size and distance. We have two eyes so we can see 3D. So we can tell how far away something is. Also, the further away something is, the more of a blue / purple hue it takes on. Ask any artist / painter. They know to add those colours to elements that are further away. Also, you can tell how big something is - even without features - based on the reflections on the surface. A tic tac would have a tiny reflection. A larger tic tac object would have large, complex reflections. You’re video isn’t based in science at all.
And he responded:
"We have two eyes so we can see 3D" - not beyond a few hundred feet or so. There's no stereo difference when features become smaller than the distance between your eyes.
"Also, the further away something is, the more of a blue / purple hue it takes on." That depends on atmospheric conditions and knowing the true color of the object you are looking it, and is less of an issue for vertical or high altitude viewing. Look at a white plane 20,000 feet away, it looks white.
"you can tell how big something is - even without features - based on the reflections on the surface" - Huh?
"A tic tac would have a tiny reflection. A larger tic tac object would have large, complex reflections. " - Why? Can you provide some example of this?
I think we've agreed that stereo vision (using two eyes) is not going to help (certainly not with things more than 10,000 feet). If I look at a plane directly above me (at, say 30,000 feet), the edges look the same sharpness when it's at 30° above the horizon (so 60,000 feet away)
For starters, read this - https://www.verywellhealth.com/depth-perception-3421547
After reading this I can add to my list. You can judge depth (even with one eye) because of:
- movement - yours and the objects
- clarity of any details (even a perfect sphere would have a sharp edge against the sky which would blur as it gets further away)
- complexity of reflections (I’ll try and find an example. I’m a graphic designer so I just know from work I’ve don’t that when I’m rendering a larger object I need to create more reflections)
- having two eyes (though I agree, that’s no longer a factor with large distances)
- personal experience as a human being with eyeballs. (I’ve never had an issue judging the distance of an object. Even with one eye closed. If I can’t immediately tell how far away it is, I can move my head one inch to the left and I know. If it’s close, the parallax will be larger. If it’s far, there will be little parallax).
Also, he was on a multi-million dollar jet decked out with cutting edge equipment that’s sole purpose is to tell him where an object is, how fast it’s moving, and he’s an expert in using said equipment.
I don’t know that this thing was 100% a spacecraft. But I think your argument is really reaching. Look at baseball players. Their catching round white spheres coming out of a clear blue sky at 100+ mph and catching them while jumping through the air. Sure, there are little stitches on the ball. I highly doubt that makes a difference.
By all means, do an experiment like I suggested with 2 white spheres, one small, one huge and see if people can judge distance. Even against the sky with one eye closed I bet they could. As a photographer, I know you could fool people with a photo. This has to be with human subjects to be accurate.
The clarity of details is not going to be measurably detectable for 10,000 - 20,000 feet.
"Complexity of reflections" makes no sense to me. So I'll await an example.
"Movement" is somewhat plausible. If you can move your head, you can get a sense of distance for nearby static objects relative to other static objects. But if the object is moving (and you don't know HOW it is moving) and you are also moving, then head motion is not likely to help with something 10-20,000 feet away.
An experiment would be great. But I don't have the means to do it at a sufficient scale. But it sounds like the type of things that people would have looked into before.
