# NASA panel analyzes GO FAST

#### Mendel

##### Senior Member.
Can anyone who has been following it break down the NASA analysis and subsequent UFO twitter noise?

All I can get is NASA did an analysis but didn't take into account turn rate or wind or something and got the low end speed based on the simple trigonometry model as detailed at the start of this thread.

But there's some wind data that other people have? Or classified data thats NASA has and didn't use? Or its the same data?

So they got it wrong? But its still wind speed driven its just NASA didn't do an in depth investigation? Or something else?
The analysis is on page 28 (PDF page 30) of their recent report.

The final report from NASA on the UAP topic has been placed on their webpage: https://science.nasa.gov/uap
The direct link to the report is here: report

A well-known UAP event is the “GoFast” video, recorded by navy aviators from the USS Theodore Roosevelt. A still frame from this video is shown in the Figure below, where the infrared camera has locked onto a small object in the center. The video gives an impression of an object skimming above the ocean at a great velocity. But analysis of the numerical information on the display reveals a less extraordinary interpretation.

The circled numbers in the image provide the information needed to estimate the object’s altitude and velocity. This information includes (1) elevation angle of the camera (negative = downward), (2) azimuth angle of the camera, (3) target range in nautical miles, (4) the aircraft’s altitude in feet, (5) time reference in seconds, and (6) indicated air speed in knots. Using items 1, 3, and 4, plus a bit of trigonometry, we calculate that the object is at an altitude of 13,000 feet, and 4.2 miles from the ocean behind it (see middle panel). Given that the aircraft’s groundspeed is about 435 mph, we may conclude that the impression of rapid motion is at least partly due to the high velocity of the sensor, coupled with the parallax effect.

We can use other information from the display to place some limits on the true velocity of the object. This analysis is summarized in the right-hand panel, which depicts an overhead view of the encounter during a 22-second interval. The jet was banking left at about 15° during this time, which corresponds to an approximate turning radius of 16 kilometers. We know the range and bearing of the object at the start (t=0s) and end (t=22s) times. Using the calculated true air speed (TAS) and a bit more trigonometry, we find the object moved about 390 meters during this 22-second interval, which corresponds to an average speed of 40 mph. This is a typical wind speed at 13,000 feet.

Our calculation has neglected wind effects on the aircraft, and thus there is uncertainty in this result. But the analysis reveals that the object need not be moving at an extraordinary velocity. Note also that the object appears bright against a dark ocean for these display settings. This indicates that the object is colder than the ocean. There is thus no evidence of heat produced by a propulsion system. This further supports the conjecture that the object is most likely drifting with the wind. The availability of additional data would enable a more firm conclusion about the nature of this object.

Original GoFast video, released by the Department of Defense:
https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents
Content from External Source

Last edited:
As much as I am loathe to grant ad hits to the Daily Mail I have been asked read this Daily Mail article now a few times

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...BAL-UAP-skeptics-simulation-weather-data.html

I am trying to pick my way through the critique here, it's quite detailed but as far as I can tell it's basically about wind speeds based on ERA data and the 120 knots from the west statement from GIMBAL taken by using the metadata from the video as the event date and then using the fact that based on them being the same aircrew/plane/flight that the speeds would be similar and then adjusting for altitude etc.

Then they use this forum for selective quoting, they use @TheCholla 's sitrec to validate it.

One computer simulation, created by noted UFO skeptic Mick West and hosted on his skeptics forum Metabunk, found that the GOFAST object would have been going significantly faster than 40 mph when taking this wind speed into account.

The skeptic's most conservative run of the simulation would have the GOFAST UFO traveling at 100 knots or 115 mph.

'This suggests that the object could not be a balloon,' as one Metabunk poster noted, 'because it needs intrinsic speed in addition [to] wind speed at 13,000 ft.'

As the US National Weather Service notes, 'wind speed generally increases with increasing height,' and the Metabunk simulation estimates that 120 knots of wind at 25,000 feet could correspond in this case to 50-to-80 knots of wind at 13,000 feet
Content from External Source
I think at least there is some misattribution of @TheCholla conjecture to @Mick West

All I can get is NASA did an analysis but didn't take into account turn rate or wind or something and got the low end speed based on the simple trigonometry model as detailed at the start of this thread.

Yes, it's mostly the same analysis as the one Mick presents at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/go...onges-to-the-stars-academy-bird-balloon.9569/ , edited so it would fit on a single page of the report.

There's a typo concerning the range in the second diagram (3.4 -> 3.8). They also fix the turn radius at 16 km by considering the bank angle and speed.

Much of the comment from the UFO crowd, notably Marik (@MvonRen on Twitter) and his acolytes, implies that NASA have ignored or simply overlooked the possible effect of wind on the aircraft. The sentence in NASA's report

Our calculation has neglected wind effects on the aircraft, and thus there is uncertainty in this result.

shows that this is an unfair criticism (surprise!) NASA were evidently aware of the possibility of wind effects, and far from concealing this, they draw attention to it. In the absence of data on actual wind speeds, their conclusion

the object need not be moving at an extraordinary velocity. [emphasis added]

is reasonable. However, it would be nice to have some idea of the sensitivity of the conclusion to variations in wind speed. For example, if the aircraft is flying against (or with) a wind of 100 knots, 150 knots, etc, what difference does it make to the estimated ground speed of the object? This issue may well have been considered in the various discussions of GOFAST, but I don't have the stomach to look through all of those at the moment.

[Edit: written before seeing #2 and #3 above]

Joshua Semeter did a presentation on this at the NASA panel meeting back in May.
From the "Go Fast - Balloon theory" thread.
I'm reviving this topic due to the NASA UAP Panel discussion, where Joshua Semeter, the Director for Space Physics at Boston University, gave at talk that was essentially my initial analysis of GoFast
Source: https://youtu.be/PLyEO0jNt6M?t=302

In his "Determination of Object Velocity" he did a single turn-rate overhead analysis with no wind.

The 34 knots, 40 mph, that he calculated, is in line with the range of possible speeds that I and others calculated back in 2018, in the original Go Fast thread:
(there's a LOT of work in that thread, some out-of-date, but a lot of relevant thoughts, calculations, data extractions, and visualizations)

This current thread outlines some of the issues with wind.

The 2D simple analysis:
• Assumes zero wind, so airspeed is the same as ground speed. But the wind will be different at different altitudes, and reportedly 120 knots at 25,000 feet.
• Assumes a single bank angle, when the bank angle changes.
• Only considers two lines of sight.
Subsequent analysis using multiple lines of sight revealed some squiggly paths. But that is probably due to inaccuracies in the data.

Last edited by a moderator:
NASA were evidently aware of the possibility of wind effects, and far from concealing this, they draw attention to it. In the absence of data on actual wind speeds, their conclusion
the object need not be moving at an extraordinary velocity. [emphasis added]
Content from External Source
is reasonable. However, it would be nice to have some idea of the sensitivity of the conclusion to variations in wind speed.
The aim was to not swamp lay people with numbers, and to keep the analysis short.

As much as I am loathe to grant ad hits to the Daily Mail I have been asked read this Daily Mail article now a few times

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...BAL-UAP-skeptics-simulation-weather-data.html
The Daily Mail doesn't even know the exact date or the time, much less the exact location, and does not account for differences in wind direction.

## The main point of the NASA analysis is that the GO FAST object looks fast because of parallax—because the Navy jet was fast.

I think that point stands, no matter what the wind speed was. And it makes the video "not extraordinary", no matter what the object actually was.

Last edited:
I think that point stands, no matter what the wind speed was. And it makes the video "not extraordinary", no matter what the object actually was
I agree, at least for any reasonable wind speed, though I haven't 'done the math'.

But Marik and his pals would still argue that any speed for the object other than that of the ambient wind would rule out the balloon hypothesis, and any speed higher than, say, 100 knots would rule out the bird hypothesis, and it is well known that any object other than a bird or a balloon must be an alien spacecraft!

But Marik and his pals would still argue that any speed for the object other than that of the ambient wind would rule out the balloon hypothesis, and any speed higher than, say, 100 knots would rule out the bird hypothesis, and it is well known that any object other than a bird or a balloon must be an alien spacecraft!
While that's funny, it's not really what's going on here.

The rhetoric trick / logical disconnect is actually this:

• Elizondo: "Look how fast this unidentified thing is going, must be an alien (or a scary threat)"
• Mick: "It only looks like it's going fast because of parallax, it could be quite slow."
• UFO guy 1: (ignores Mick)
• UFO guy 2: "I can't contradict Mick on that, let's contradict him on something else!"

And thus the goal posts get shifted, and the UFO guys need never admit they were mistaken. Mick gets distrusted, and in-group cohesion is advanced.

While that's funny, it's not really what's going on here.

The rhetoric trick / logical disconnect is actually this:

• Elizondo: "Look how fast this unidentified thing is going, must be an alien (or a scary threat)"
• Mick: "It only looks like it's going fast because of parallax, it could be quite slow."
• UFO guy 1: (ignores Mick)
• UFO guy 2: "I can't contradict Mick on that, let's contradict him on something else!"

And thus the goal posts get shifted, and the UFO guys need never admit they were mistaken. Mick gets distrusted, and in-group cohesion is advanced.

• UFO guy 3: Mick is only considering known prosaic explanations for the video and is disregarding the eyewitness testimony that said it looked like the object had just come out of a portal. His 'debunk' hasnt been peer reviewed in a scientific journal, is ignoring most of the 'data' and therefore is just pseudoscientific nonsense. Lets wait for more data and a peer reviewed journal before concluding that this wasn't an extraordinary event, but in the meantime lets shout 'Aliens' from the rooftops.
• UFO guy 4: Who mentioned Aliens?

The main point of the NASA analysis is that the GO FAST object looks fast because of parallax—because the Navy jet was fast.
This cannot be stressed enough. The only thing that makes the video noteworthy at all is the illusion of great speed. It was trotted out as mysterious and inexplicable based on the illusion of great speed. Without the illusion of great speed, we would never have heard of or seen this otherwise unremarkable video.

If it does not move at inexplicably great speed, it does nothing remarkable at all. Sure, it MIGHT be an alien spaceship emulating the flight of a balloon, or albatross, or drone, or something. There is just zero reason to think so, any more than there would be to suspect that the recognizable planes crossing the sky over my house today are really alien spaceships cleverly disguised so as to look like Boeing 737s

The usual rambling about UFO guys, UFO believers, etc. Why no one outside the debunker's echo chamber wants to engage here.

What has been pointed out, and something me and others have discussed directly with Joshua Semeter by email, is that we have strong indication that GoFast was filmed during the same flight as Gimbal (probably a few minutes before). And Gimbal had a 120-kt wind at 25k ft, which is going to deflect the F-18 flight path significantly. That means that when you put camera angles on top of your flight path, it's going to change your lines of sight significantly too (all that can be tested in Mick's Sitrec). Example below.

The NASA panel didn't consider this, it sounds like they know very little about the context of these videos. But they recognize it's a critical parameter that's going to affect the results. After he was contacted for comment by the author of the recent DailyMail's article, J. Semeter admitted that a 100-kt ground speed, as I've found and Mick has in Sitrec at the moment, is in the range of plausible solution, at the RNG range (if precise). He also recognizes they assumed the displayed range is highly reliable, but they don't have any more evidence for this than we do, as this hasn't been investigated.

All NASA that they are, they simply replicated the 2-D geometrical analyses that had been done in March 2018 on this website. With all respect for NASA, it's worth pointing them to limitations in their analysis, especially because in their report they don't give a confidence interval for the speed at the range. They now recognize it's 40-115mph at the range, 40mph being the lower bound with zero wind, which is unlikely. Not extremely scientific to give a fixed number while recognizing there are large uncertainties in the calculation (this would not pass peer-review).

Unfortunately, 40mph is now reported everywhere, and often used to mock the pilots for being surprised by an object drifting at 40mph in the wind. But if the object was being caught in a 100-kt wind at 13kft, quite a strong wind for that altitude, it may help to understand context and why the pilots are actually surprised, and locked on it. The problem is now looking into the wind data for the potential dates of the event, in the area of capture, to check if the wind at 13kft may have been that strong. Something that the NASA panel hasn't done either, which is too bad because NASA has the resources to easily check historical wind data. I'm also disappointed that didn't try to get military expertise on the reliability of the displayed range, as a governmental agency with wide ramifications.

My opinion is that we'll hear from the crew at some point, and that will help to go further and understand why/how they locked on the object, and what was its measured speed on their instrument as it seems likely they had radar contact to slew the pod in that direction. I don't see what you can blame about our little group of interested people trying to refine analyses on this, and get the correct math when trying to reconstruct flight path and the object's speed. You're the ones mentioning alien spaceships all the time, when others are trying to start with getting the right picture of the object's flight characteristics, by including key parameters such as wind. And it seems the NASA panel is interested in having this kind of constructive exchange and in refining their work on this.

Last edited:
Unfortunately, 40mph is now reported everywhere, and often used to mock the pilots for being surprised by an object drifting at 40mph in the wind.
They are most likely surprised and elated because it's a small object and they did a hard to do thing, in manually slewing the camera and dragging the autotrack box and having it grab it on a small distant object at max digital zoom, you can see the WSO slew the camera (with a thumb joystick.)

And it's not specifically hard because the object is moving quickly it's hard it's because you are moving fast yourself and the object has some motion and the camera is really zoomed in and you are using an imprecise controller and a small screen and wearing a flight suit etc and in the cramped cockpit of combat jet.

as it seems likely they had radar contact to slew the pod in that direction
This is the thing, they had RADAR so they could have used SLAVE to have the system slew the pod for them, yet they didn't, why?

Perhaps because this was not a serious thing where they were intercepting a strange or worrying object, it was a test/challenge/training thing to see if the WSO could use the autotrack (a bit of a misnomer, because it's partially manual) alone to get the track.

And none of this windspeed honing of flight paths seems relevant to the initial claim (low and fast) and further claims which have been shown to be incorrect leaving it perfectly reasonable that the object is blown in the wind.

So given wind speed between 40 or 120 knots is reasonable and fits the data and is consistent with a balloon, why is this video interesting?

And if NASA should have had all this data and do all this math, that you agree with, why did AATIP / TTSA not do any of this?

Last edited:
100-kt ground speed at 13k ft in the area, it sure doesn't fit wind speed on January 20-21 2015, which were the dates obtained through FOIA by the Black Vault. As discussed in our Gimbal paper it seems January 24th is a much better fit for the 120-kt wind at 25k ft, and it's also the date when the videos were encoded (soon after the flight?). 100 kts is still quite high for the wind we see at 13k ft 300 miles off Jacksonville, but precise location would have to be known, maybe if they were further east, or if the flight was in the afternoon (but we heard it was a night flight). Again, we need to hear from the crew (and we will I think).

Personally I don't care about AATIP, I'm discussing the NASA report.

Personally I don't care about AATIP, I'm discussing the NASA report.
Why do you not care about them?

The problem is now looking into the wind data for the potential dates of the event, in the area of capture, to check if the wind at 13kft may have been that strong. Something that the NASA panel hasn't done either, which is too bad because NASA has the resources to easily check historical wind data.
The problem is not having precise data, as NASA points out. Time/date/location would be a good start.

100-kt ground speed at 13k ft in the area, it sure doesn't fit wind speed on January 20-21 2015, which were the dates obtained through FOIA by the Black Vault. As discussed in our Gimbal paper it seems January 24th is a much better fit for the 120-kt wind at 25k ft, and it's also the date when the videos were encoded (soon after the flight?).
Or you can just pick the data to suit your beliefs. But that's not scientific, is it?

NASA says, "there's uncertainty here", and leave it at that, because no amount of speculation removes that uncertainty .

That's the thing, they don't leave it at that, they stated it was going at 40mph, which is speculative if you know your calculation is incorrect due to missing parameters. Giving a confidence interval instead is not a bad idea here. It's been corrected through the DailyMail article, fine. They also believe the range is highly reliable, but haven't checked.

I'm not picking data to suit beliefs, we know there was a 120-kt wind at 25k ft for Gimbal so I look at potential dates. I'll leave at that on this thread, as always it's impossible to discuss peacefully.

Last edited:
NASA says, "there's uncertainty here", and leave it at that, because no amount of speculation removes that uncertainty .
That's the thing, they don't leave it at that, they stated it was going at 40mph, which is speculative if you know your calculation is incorrect due to missing parameters.
Compare the last paragraph:
Our calculation has neglected wind effects on the aircraft, and thus there is uncertainty in this result. But the analysis reveals that the object need not be moving at an extraordinary velocity. Note also that the object appears bright against a dark ocean for these display settings. This indicates that the object is colder than the ocean. There is thus no evidence of heat produced by a propulsion system. This further supports the conjecture that the object is most likely drifting with the wind. The availability of additional data would enable a more firm conclusion about the nature of this object.
Content from External Source
Daily Mail:
The skeptic's most conservative run of the simulation would have the GOFAST UFO traveling at 100 knots or 115 mph.
Content from External Source
Yeah, no.
That's based on assuming things about the data that are not known with certainty.

As is assuming zero wind to communicate a speed of 40mph, quickly spread everywhere in the medias, often without the caveat.

Three things that can be hardly disputed about the status of analyses for this video, to this day:

1) The interval of reconstructed ground speeds for the object, at the displayed RNG range, is 40mph (assuming zero wind at the F-18) to 115mph (assuming 120-kt at the F-18).

2) How reliable the displayed RNG range is unknown, as there is no evidence the laser was fired, and it is said this range is not of practical use in air-to-air mode. The NASA panel hasn't got more expertise on this, so this is an open question.

3) With more precise time/location, and confirmation that the range is reliable data, the "drifting in the wind" versus "self-powered" hypotheses can be tested.

The NASA panelist seems to agree on all these points, it's not a matter of beliefs.

I'd add that the strength of 3-D recreations like Sitrec is to provide a visual, so that the speed of background motion in different scenarios can be compared to the real video. With it we can verify that the "no wind scenario" does not get you there, and that a strong wind at the F-18 is needed to replicate that speed of background motion (it's still to slow in the standard Sitrec setup, by the way). This suggests that the speed of the object probably sits in the upper range of the 40-115mph confidence interval, which imo may better explain the pilot's surprise and the audio (if range is correct, as always).

And sure at the range, TTSA is debunked, but we're well beyond that in terms of investigations. Now that people are not interested in it I understand 100%, to me it's just a matter of trying to be as precise and rigorous as possible with these analyses.

You're the ones mentioning alien spaceships all the time, when others are trying to start with getting the right picture of the object's flight characteristics, by including key parameters such as wind.
You can't be serious....

I am though, I think a discussion about limitations in a simplistic calculation for GoFast could do without being derailed towards aliens and UFO believers, after a few posts. But not on this forum, I get it.

I am though, I think a discussion about flaws in a simplistic calculation for GoFast could do without being derailed towards aliens and UFO believers, after a few posts. But not on this forum, I get it.
It's a debunking forum. The GO FAST video has been used as an example of a UAP of possible alien origin by UFO enthusiasts.
That it is what people are trying to debunk, and the best way of debunking something is to find out the truth.

If something can't be rationally debunked, and the evidence supports an extraordinary explanation, then we might have an exciting new phenomenon to consider. A quick browse of threads here shows that many members would find this fascinating.

Where I live there are nationally broadcast, free-to-view TV programs maybe daily/ every other day where accounts or "evidence" from old UFO cases, no matter how convincingly debunked, are presented as mysteries (if not proof of alien visitation). GO FAST, Gimbal and other relatively recent material are now getting the same treatment. Prosaic or "skeptical" explanations are only mentioned if they are obviously insufficient and/ or can be ridiculed.

I feel this is sort of dishonest. The same sort of selective truth-telling now pervades our politics ("alternative facts") and many news organisations (regardless of political affiliation).
This forum gives people the opportunity to discuss claims that they suspect are ill-founded, misleading or false.
Unfortunately, it's unlikely to get the same number of viewers as "Secrets of Skinwalker Ranch", or get similar funding.

But I suspect this forum has found more likely explanations for things in the real world, that are objectively true, than the whole run of "Skinwalker", or any given UFOs-are-alien-tech blog.

That's fine, the original ill-founded claim was GoFast is going to 2/3 the speed of sound. If the range is reliable this is debunked of course. Now it doesn't mean people cannot discuss the video further. I only respond because I got tagged in this thread.

I think saying the object is going at 40mph is not exactly solid given the ensemble of evidence we have, and that incomplete explanations do not serve the debunking purpose on the long term. There is a reason why the pilots are surprised, and an object caught at 100+mph in a unusual strong wind at 13k ft, may be a better explanation than Navy pilots don't know what parallax is. Finding out if/how reliable a key parameter of the video is (range), it's also important and interesting. Rather than assuming it's reliable based on a feeling it must be.

better explanation than Navy pilots don't know what parallax is.

When was that presented as an explanation?

There is a reason why the pilots are surprised, and an object caught at 100+mph in a unusual strong wind at 13k ft, may be a better explanation than Navy pilots don't know what parallax is.
Chris Lehto, another Navy pilot, released several videos arguing for the extraordinary nature of GoFast (and continues to release more and more absurd videos on UFOs) after the initial debunkings. Including using arguments like 2 objects at different distances can't both be in focus at the same time. There was a reddit video by a pilot of a "stationary" object he filmed from the cockpit that clearly showed the object was moving and was just another plane. This argument that pilots can never make mistakes needs to die.

Where did I say "the pilots can never make mistakes"?

I am though, I think a discussion about limitations in a simplistic calculation for GoFast could do without being derailed towards aliens and UFO believers, after a few posts. But not on this forum, I get it.
You might find the audience here more sympathetic if you gave a bit more explanation of your alternative theories. For example, at #11 above you show what you claim to be the effect of wind on the course of an aircraft. But without more explanation this just looks entirely arbitrary. At the beginning the wind appears to deflect the course to the right, but later deflects it to the left. How is this possible with a steady wind blowing in the same direction?

2) How reliable the displayed RNG range is unknown, as there is no evidence the laser was fired, and it is said this range is not of practical use in air-to-air mode. The NASA panel hasn't got more expertise on this, so this is an open question.
With it we can verify that the "no wind scenario" does not get you there, and that a strong wind at the F-18 is needed to replicate that speed of background motion
Knowing parallax, you're obviously aware that if the object's altitude is higher, the background motion will appear faster for the same object speed. And since you've called the reliability of the range data into question, well...

(The same would hold true if the wind directions were opposite, increasing the closing speed.)

The problem I see is that while GOFAST is an unidentified aerial phenomenon UAP, the moment you demonstrate that it could be a wind-blown object, there's no longer evidence that it's an unidentified anomalous phenomenon UAP, and then you can't have AARO look at it anymore, can't force government disclosure, etc. All the people who pushed for "A=anomalous" so that "UAP" could mean "UFO" again (take that, skeptics!) shot themselves in the foot. Or not, if the intent was to preserve the uncertainty that keeps the field alive.

With this analysis, GOFAST is just a "temporarily non-attributed object", in the parlance of the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023, and not a UAP.

I suspect that's why you ignore the official, FOIA'd date, and associate GIMBAL with GOFAST to attach that wind speed remark, so that you can then exclude, on that basis, the possibility that GOFAST has no propulsion.

(How did the Navy pilot know the correct wind speed?)

The bar that the UAP/anomalous designation has to clear is proof of anomaly. It's not sufficient to merely show possibility. You can't just pick your assumptions.

Article:
Unidentified anomalous phenomena are differentiated from both attributed and temporarily non-attributed objects by one or more of the following observables:
(i) Instantaneous acceleration absent apparent inertia.​
(ii) Hypersonic velocity absent a thermal signature and sonic shockwave.​
(iii) Transmedium (such as space-to-ground and air-to- undersea) travel.​
(iv) Positive lift contrary to known aerodynamic principles.​
(v) Multispectral signature control.​
(vi) Physical or invasive biological effects to close observers and the environment.​

GOFAST is no UAP.

You might find the audience here more sympathetic if you gave a bit more explanation of your alternative theories. For example, at #11 above you show what you claim to be the effect of wind on the course of an aircraft. But without more explanation this just looks entirely arbitrary. At the beginning the wind appears to deflect the course to the right, but later deflects it to the left. How is this possible with a steady wind blowing in the same direction?
The assumed wind is blowing from 35⁰ left, displacing the aircraft right of its heading until it has turned to meet the wind head-on.

The choice of 35⁰ seems entirely arbitrary, though; chosen to all but minimize the closing speed, but not based on evidence.

As is assuming zero wind to communicate a speed of 40mph, quickly spread everywhere in the medias, often without the caveat.

Three things that can be hardly disputed about the status of analyses for this video, to this day:

1) The interval of reconstructed ground speeds for the object, at the displayed RNG range, is 40mph (assuming zero wind at the F-18) to 115mph (assuming 120-kt at the F-18).

Even if you assume the 120 kt wind, the F-18 may be going against the wind (wind on nose), or in the same direction (wind on tail), and all the directions in between (including the perpendicular, wind on the side), and all of these situations will give a different speed for the object. Taking into account the wind may also result in a low speed for the object.

2) How reliable the displayed RNG range is unknown, as there is no evidence the laser was fired, and it is said this range is not of practical use in air-to-air mode. The NASA panel hasn't got more expertise on this, so this is an open question.
AFAIK, only Chris Lehto raised doubts about the reliability of the range. But never explained why.

If you use the displayed range to calculate the altitude at any moment in the video, you get consistently the 13000 feet value. Take into account that the angles and range are continuously varying, but the result is consistent for all the duration of the video. There are no strange values, or strange changes of the altitude... nothing strange.

Unless there is some kind of systematic error (that someone should explain me why it happens), I don't see why I can't trust those values.

if some people are questioning the reliability or accuracy of the RNG value the response shouldn't be 'it can't be used' as some people on #UFOTWITTER have suggested. The response should be 'well how reliable and accurate is it?" . For example , is it accurate to 10% most of the time? I think that if the display is showing a value then we should assume that it is accurate enough.

if some people are questioning the reliability or accuracy of the RNG value the response shouldn't be 'it can't be used' as some people on #UFOTWITTER have suggested. The response should be 'well how reliable and accurate is it?" . For example , is it accurate to 10% most of the time? I think that if the display is showing a value then we should assume that it is accurate enough.
I think the people who suggest the RaNGe can't be used are mistaken as to who has the burden of proof here. It's the people who maintain that GOFAST is anomalous who must show evidence. If they don't want to use the range to do it, they don't have a chance.

If they want to substitute a range that's convenient to them, then they're speculating, but not proving.

The assumed wind is blowing from 35⁰ left, displacing the aircraft right of its heading until it has turned to meet the wind head-on.
Thanks. That does explain it. But wouldn't a 'highly trained Top Gun pilot' take corrective action to maintain the desired heading?

Thanks. That does explain it. But wouldn't a 'highly trained Top Gun pilot' take corrective action to maintain the desired heading?
Nah, normally a pilot would adjust the heading of the aircraft to maintain the desired course. Which I expect they did.

Last edited:
Thanks. That does explain it. But wouldn't a 'highly trained Top Gun pilot' take corrective action to maintain the desired heading?
When using the ATFLIR we've seen that pilots often try to maintain a bank to allow optimal use of the pod depending on where the target object is relative to the aircraft.

However GIMBAL is the result of tracking an object whilst bringing the aircraft around to put that object in front of you, forcing gimbal rolls and adjustments.

First sentence.

Where does it say "Navy pilots don't know what parallax is?"

Chris Lehto, another Navy pilot, released several videos arguing for the extraordinary nature of GoFast (and continues to release more and more absurd videos on UFOs) after the initial debunkings. Including using arguments like 2 objects at different distances can't both be in focus at the same time. There was a reddit video by a pilot of a "stationary" object he filmed from the cockpit that clearly showed the object was moving and was just another plane. This argument that pilots can never make mistakes needs to die.

Just to be clear, Lehto was a USAF F-16 pilot.

The original post is about the NASA panel analysis.

The NASA panelist is interested in refining these analyses and comparing models, which is what we do when pointing them to the probable role of wind. It's a constructive exchange I think, that who knows, may lead to learning more about the accuracy of the range if they use their connections in the government. People in the military and Raytheon must know the answer.

Everyone is free to consider this useless and the video debunked. Others are also free to attempt refining the analyses, which is the subject of this thread.

Others are also free to attempt refining the analyses, which is the subject of this thread.
No. That's the subject of other threads on this subforum.

And the main obstacle to refining the analysis is lack of date/time/wind data and data on the motion of the jet. Speculating on these values "refines" nothing.

(Though data on angular speed and the direction of the background in the video might be interesting, too.)

Ok, so the NASA analysis is not the subject of this thread, and including the wind effect in the analyses refines nothing.
Have a nice discussion.

Replies
33
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
552
Replies
20
Views
2K