NYT: GIMBAL Video of U.S. Navy Jet Encounter with Unknown Object

[Mick West]

[Update May 15 2019] The following video is a quick overview of the material in this thread, culminating with the addition of the video of a similar glare from Dave Falch. I think the combination of factors all point very strong towards the rotation of the object being an artifact of the forward gimbal-mounted camera, which is probably why the video was titled "Gimbal"

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr1cfpos6vo

This video should answer most remaining questions

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka_bX9Hx1H0


The remainder of this post incorporates various findings which are discussing in more detain in subsequent posts in the thread below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html?referer=https://outlook.live.com/

The program collected video and audio recordings of reported U.F.O. incidents, including footage from a Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet showing an aircraft surrounded by some kind of glowing aura traveling at high speed and rotating as it moves. The Navy pilots can be heard trying to understand what they are seeing. "There's a whole fleet of them," one exclaims. Defense officials declined to release the location and date of the incident.

First of all make sure you are talking about the right video. There's two that are often confused. Here we are talking about the GIMBAL video, which is not from the Nimitz incident, which is discussed here:
https://www.metabunk.org/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage.t9190/

This is related to Tom DeLonge's "To The Stars Academy", discussed at:
https://www.metabunk.org/blink-182s-tom-delonges-to-the-stars-ufo-disclosure-enterprise.t9155/

Link contains video. Sample frame:

I'm thinking the black shape around the object is some kind of IR flare/glare. We know that the shape of a very bright IR source, like the engine of a plane, can be much bigger than the object itself, as explained here:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcsAZTKRv5E

Here's the type of motion we are talking about rotation, and tracking on the exterior. This will be combined with internal camera movements to keep the horizon level.

Something that can immediately be explained is the New York Times headline of "Glowing Auras"

Here's some footage from an ATFLIR:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j__B6zx60K0

[Addition: Jan 22 2018] As @igoddard notes, the flare around the (much closer) engines rotate independently of the rotation of the plane.

Of note is the "cold" glow around the hot sources, indicating that's just a camera thing. And [Updated Jun 2019] probably a sharpening adjustment called an "unsharp mask"

If people try to describe this as some kind of "aura" or "field" then they obviously have not done their homework.

[Update Dec 23 2017:]

The indicator in the top left of the display "NAR / Z 2.0" indicates maximum magnification. NAR (Narrow) is a FOV of 1.5°, so with Z 2.0 (Zoom 2.0x) (probably digital zoom) that's an effective FOV of 0.75. (By comparison the 2000mm P900 mega zoom has a FOV of about 1.0°)

We can get some ballpark figures for distance from this. Let's say the target is about the size of an F/A-18 Hornet, 44 ft wingspan with a bit extra for IR flare, like 50 feet. View attachment 30777
If the apparent long axis of the object is representative of the wingspan, then it's 64/1074 of the width of the image. i.e. 0.75°*64/1074 = 0.0447° (note: linear to angular conversion are fine for small angles)

So converting that to distance, tan(angle) = object size/object distance

50/tan(0.0447 degrees) = 64089 feet. (12 miles away).

Alternatively if it's actually a distant airliner with a 200 foot wingspan, and the "saucer" shape is actually flare, then the effective length on the long visual axis there would be more like 500 feet. Hence 120 miles away.

[Update Dec 24]
Preliminary analysis of the angular motion of the clouds suggests that it's a smaller object around 15 miles away.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sHmuP_LIxI


[Note: this post is a summary post, incorporating info from the following thread, and will be changed and updated]

 

[Mick West]

The DeLonge version of the video supplies the following useful info

The sensor heading indicator is very interesting because it goes from 54°L to 6°R. The orientation of the shape flips as it goes over from L to R.

The plane is turning left, the camera is turning right.

The change in angle of the camera appears fairly constant

Top of my list (right now) is that this is not a real object. Instead it's some kind of reflection. With the primary evidence being the way it flips orientation when it crosses the main axis of the plane.
[Update: Now I'm back to it being a distant plane again]

 

[Mick West]

Here's a plot of video time against camera angle. X axis is frame number in NTST (29.97fps)

Data: https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/gimbal-analysis-xlsx.30659/
Based on NYT video: https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/'look-at-that-thing-'-u-s-navy-jet-encounters-unknown-object-mp4.30660/

So a fairly constant turn rate, speeding up a bit as it gets towards zero, then slowing down on the other side of zero.

This distinct change in turn rate seems consistent with a "reflection" hypothesis, but might just be coincidental

 

[Mick West]

After more analysis I think it's probably a distant aircraft, as when the camera moves at 32;20 (32 seconds 20 frames, timecode from the NYT version of the video) the position of the object moves in sync with the far clouds, which tends to indicate it's part of the environment rather than camera

(Stabilized clip attached - nothe the abrupt clockwise snap is the video resetting to the start not an actual movement. The movement of interest is counter-clockwise, and coincides with the camera shake.)

However, notice that when the camera moves the object appears to rotate at the same time, with its long axis going from tilting to the right to being perpendicular to the horizon. So the question there is is it:

1) Coincidentally object rotating at the same time as the camera movement
2) The object is actually rotating, which is what causes the camera to lose lock
3) The camera loses lock due to turbulence, and the change in the camera causes a change in the shape of the IR flare.

 

[James Thorpe]

I believe it is a distant aircraft as I have said on VORTEX. The camera is locked onto the object which is why it is so well stabilised. As it changes its orientation the camera has to adjust accordingly which is why it loses lock for a short period of time.

The video is consistent with a chasing aircraft banking port to bring an object to its 12 o'clock position, hence the angle between the camera and the aircraft's attitude reducing from 52 to almost 0.

As soon as the chase plane is pointing directly towards the object, the object then banks port sharply. The passing clouds are simply caused by the chase plane banking whilst the camera remains locked onto it and do not indicate true direction of travel. Bear in mind, the chase plane is still in a bank angle as the other aircraft beings to turn sharply.

The IR dark black shows the heat from the other aircraft's engines.

 

[James Thorpe]

I created this groud track image to explain what you are seeing in the video.

Our aircraft is in RED, the object is in YELLOW, the white lines are showing you the camera view shown in the video.

As you can see at point A, the object is flying away from us and is flying straight and level.

We are already banking to the port and the object is at an angle of 53 degrees left relative to our attitude.

As we continue this bank, this angle reduces as the object comes around to our 12 o'clock position. Extending the white lines which show the camera view point we can see that the background clouds would be tracking left to right quite fast as indeed they do in the video.

When the object gets to about the 6 degree left mark (relative to our direction of flight), it banks sharply to port. This is the image you see at B. As we are still in a bank ourselves, this makes it appear that the object rotates, when in fact it is simply banking. The background clouds no longer track across the frame as fast as they did, because the camera is now pointing almost in the same direction of our aircraft and with respect to the background clouds.

People think this is the view from the cockpit of the aircraft looking straight ahead, it is not, it is the view from the camera which is pointing directly at the aircraft while the chase plane is banking to bring it into view.

 

[Mick West]

Here's an example showing how the IR flare can look very different to the underlying object.

Here's a video showing a rotating flare, with large rotation for small camera movements.
http://www.military.com/video/opera...trikes/f-18-takes-out-insurgents/658386321001

(Obviously a different shape, much longer.).

So we might simply be seeing a single engined jet, with the apparent tilting being a camera artifact.

 

[James Thorpe]

So we might simply be seeing a single engined jet, with the apparent tilting being a camera artifact.

I think you may be onto something there.

 

[Mick West]

It would be very useful to see IR footage for other planes that are far away. Unfortunately it mostly seems to be close up so you still see lots of real detail.

Example: here's the last shot of a video of Concorde taking off. You can still see the wings, the vertical stabilizer, and the exhaust gas plumes

Here's an earlier shot in the same video showing the size of the flares even close up, and a "spike" camera artifact.

 

[solrey]

Could it be the new Russian Sukhoi Su-57? Real world testing to see how their new stealth technology works against US defense systems perhaps? According to Wiki the nine prototypes are in the final phases of testing. I think It's supposed to be faster than the F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Su-57 has what they call supermaneuverability and advanced avionics (false radar signatures?). Perhaps the US Navy just got it's first taste of never before seen Russian technology, didn't know what it was and didn't expect that kind of performance.

http://www.pravdareport.com/photo/album/7864/0/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-57#Specifications_(T-50)

 

[DasKleineTeilchen]

what is that little dot in the left upper corner, which is slowly wandering to the middle-top of the frame? is that a star? could be good as reference-point. edit/ never mind; it doesnt jump when the sensor does, maybe an internal flare.

 

[Mick West]

Does anyone have any idea what the field of view would be for these images?

 

[deirdre]

According to Wiki the nine prototypes are in the final phases of testing.

I don't think it is new footage. I have limits to access NYTimes articles, but believe Willies link above said 2004.

 

[Mick West]

I don't think it is new footage. I have limits to access NYTimes articles, but believe Willies link above said 2004.

There's the Nimitiz "Tic-Tac" video from 2004:

Then the GIMBAL "Look at that thing dude" video, undated by NYT:

The program collected video and audio recordings of reported U.F.O. incidents, including footage from a Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet showing an aircraft surrounded by some kind of glowing aura traveling at high speed and rotating as it moves. The Navy pilots can be heard trying to understand what they are seeing. "There's a whole fleet of them," one exclaims. Defense officials declined to release the location and date of the incident.

 

[James Thorpe]

what is that little dot in the left upper corner, which is slowly wandering to the middle-top of the frame? is that a star? could be good as reference-point. edit/ never mind; it doesnt jump when the sensor does, maybe an internal flare.

That little dot, is the pipper and it is a part of the MFD display, it shows the objects position relative to the direction the aircraft is flying in. It agrees with the angle measurement as shown at the top of the MFD.

 

[Mick West]

Regarding this new UFO video, I think it's worth noting that one of the writers of the NYT article is Leslie Kean, who bought deeply into the Chilean UFO report. She wrote about that case:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ased-from-chilean_us_586d37bce4b014e7c72ee56b

"This has been one of the most important cases in my career as director of CEFAA because our Committee was at its best, " General Bermúdez said in an email. "The CEFAA is well regarded partly because there is full participation from the scientists of the academic world, the armed forces through their representatives, and the aeronautic personnel from the DGAC, including its Director. I am extremely pleased as well with the conclusion reached which is logical and unpretentious." The official conclusion was that "the great majority of committee members agreed to call the subject in question a UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon) due to the number of highly researched reasons that it was unanimously agreed could not explain it."
...
The CEFAA has been a world leader in official and open investigations of UFOs. I have been priviledged to work closely with the staff there for about five years, learning a great deal. At the end of December, General Bermúdez retired, and although he remains an external advisor to the agency, [Jose] Lay has assumed the duty of interim director until another General is appointed by the DGAC. I am grateful to General Bermúdez for giving me access to the outstanding CEFAA case files, inviting me to attend meetings there, and for his time in answering my questions. He has left a tremendous legacy with regards to the serious study of UAP and the official recognition of a real unexplained phenomenon in our skies.

And yet that case was solved on Metabunk and Facebook in five days. It was just a plane, and the helicopter pilot had misjudged its position. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/explained-chilean-navy-ufo-video-aerodynamic-contrails-flight-ib6830.t8306/

So now she's got Luis Elizondo, who worked with her on the NYT article:
https://www.facebook.com/lesliekean...205036603909/1627582427299488/?type=3&theater

He's basically the US version of General Bermúdez, except he just did it part time, and his funding was cut off in 2012.

Also involved is billionaire Robert Bigelow who singles out Chile's UFO work as being better than the US:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html?referer=https://outlook.live.com/

"Internationally, we are the most backward country in the world on this issue," Mr. Bigelow said in an interview. "Our scientists are scared of being ostracized, and our media is scared of the stigma. China and Russia are much more open and work on this with huge organizations within their countries. Smaller countries like Belgium, France, England and South American countries like Chile are more open, too. They are proactive and willing to discuss this topic, rather than being held back by a juvenile taboo."

So they people said Chile had such a great program, they thought they had a genuine "Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon" due to the "the number of highly researched reasons that it was unanimously agreed could not explain it." - and yet that was wrong. The Chilean UFO identification program failed to identify a plane.

So now we've got this video, much more limited than the Chilean video and so harder to identify. We are told it's a mystery, a genuine UFO. But it's a mystery to a program that since 2012 Elizondo has had to run in his spare time, while "carrying out [his] other Defense Department duties", a program in a country described by his billionaire co-worker as "the most backward country in the world on this issue".

I do not doubt Mr Elizondo's belief in UFOs. But the authority of his past position carries far less weight than that of General Bermúdez, and General Bermúdez, and his committee at their best, were flat wrong.

 

[Robert Sheaffer]

Don't forget that in 2012 Chile's UFO program, and Leslie Kean, promoted a video showing a fly buzzing around as a genuine UFO. All their "experts" were fooled by a bug.
http://badufos.blogspot.com/2012/03/flying-saucer-or-fly-is-this-case-ufo.html

Kean continued, "Images show it as a dome-shaped, flat-bottomed object with no visible means of propulsion. The rounded top reflects the sun and appears metallic; the bottom is darker and flat, emitting some form of energy which is visible in photo analysis. Infrared studies show the entire object is radiating heat, just like the jets." She did not explain how it would be possible to do an "infrared study" of the object captured by an ordinary video camera with no infrared capabilities. She seemed to not even realize that this claim is absurd.

Almost immediately, I am happy to say, many people began finding flaws in this supposedly game-changing video and its analysis, even in places like the conspiracy-oriented Above Top Secret forum. Many noted the object's resemblance to that of an an insect flying wildly close to the camera. Poster UFOglobe compared the close-up of the "UFO" with that of a swarm of bees. The resemblance is easily seen.

 

[Tom Churchill]

Some additional data points:

1) Entering the speed (240 kts = 274 mph) and bank angle (about 23 degrees) into this calculator: http://www.pilotfriend.com/calcs/calculators/bankangle_calculator.htm gives you an aircraft turn radius of 11,876' and a time to complete a full turn in 185 seconds. Obviously, these are very rough calculations, but gives us a turn rate of about 1.95 degrees / second. You can use a circle of this radius to plot lines of bearing

2) The small dot which moves from left to right in a circular motion is almost certainly a "North Indicator". This is also consistent with the above (and with the video, the symbology is always white regardless of the IR Polarity (White Hot/Black Hot) mode); the camera would initially need to be turned about 54 degrees to the right in order to be looking north, towards the end of the video segment, when the camera is looking due north, the aircraft is also almost flying true north. The object is therefore always within a few degrees of true North of the aircraft. James believes this indicates orientation of the gimbal relative to the aircraft, and conceivably it could be, but I doubt it: A) While I have no experience with this particular gimbal, the Northrop Grumman Litening Pod displays a similar dot which *is* a North Indicator, and B) When the numeric azimuth indicator reads "0" (gimbal pointed in the same direction the aircraft is flying), the indicator is a few degrees off. Conversely, when the indicator is directly in the center of the screen, the numeric azimuth indicator reads 3 degrees to the right. It doesn't seem likely that, both being digital and generated by the computer, they would disagree.

 

[Dev La Vache]

The other author, Ralph Blumenthal, also wrote a very out-there piece for Vanity Fair.
https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/05/americans-alien-abduction-science

Alien Nation: Have Humans Been Abducted by Extraterrestrials?
A prestigious Harvard psychiatrist, John Edward Mack, thought so. His sudden death leaves behind many mysteries.

The beings didn't have to come from outer space, Mack theorized, maybe just a parallel universe. But by the time he wrote Abduction, he said his cases had "amply corroborated" the work of Hopkins and Jacobs, "namely that the abduction phenomenon is in some central way involved in a breeding program that results in the creation of alien/human hybrid offspring." He concluded furthermore that the aliens were carrying warnings about dangers to the planet; almost all of his abductees emerged with "a commitment to changing their relationship to the earth."

It's got everything: alien abductions, "breeding programs," faith healers, parallel universes, communication with the dead, hybrid children.

Schild had interviewed Austin and was struck by her uncanny familiarity with the double suns orbiting one another in the Orion belt. How, he marveled, was she able to give such accurate descriptions of seasonal changes particular to a binary system?

Given these standards, I'm now doubting everything about this, up to the existence of Elizondo's program.

I have no doubt, though, that the venerable New York Times would publish any dreck if they thought it would get them more pageviews.

 

[elevenaugust]

Hello everyone,

For what it worth, I've heard two interesting things that could give some clues of what the object could be.

1- In a YT comment for the first video (the 2004 Nimitz "tic-tac") someone said that is could be an AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), easily recognizable by it x-shaped tailfins plus the wings that are clearly visible at 40", at the time it Flickr from TV to IR mode...

2- In an ATS thread someone said that he knows one of the crewmember that specifically told him: "Hey Cosmania! something I'd really not thought about until a guy from OSD contacted me a few months ago. Then the Times contacted me to confirm XXXXX's story, so I told them what I could recall. The FLIR video they included is not from us, that was from a different flight, so I don't like that they attributed it to us.
Frankly, when I got back to the ship for my CVIC debrief, I asked them if there was a sub in the area doing cruise missile launch tests, since that seemed like the most plausible explanation I could come up with. I told OSD & the Times reporter that, too.
Anyway, didn't think it would be such a huge deal, just told them what I remembered."

Missile test?

Also, the link between the two videos is unclear. The NY Times specifically linked the two under a same DOD's endorsement, but I'm not really sure that they really come from the same event.

 

[Mick West]

In the Nimitz case

This isn't the Nimitz case, it's an case of unknown location and time. People have linked it to the Nimitz case, but there's no official verification.

And there's no confirmation that what is seen on radar matches what is seen in the F/A-18's FLIR. Consider they said there's a whole fleet of them, but we only see one.

 

[Mick West]

The oddest thing about this video seems to be the "rotation".

If this is simply flare, I wonder if it might be a function of the way the Raytheon ATFLIR works. Here's a video from Raytheon:

Source: https://youtu.be/KGEuNTzmYJQ

The housing rotates in two ways, axially (around the long axis of the "cigar"), and in the ball shaped gimbal mount at the end.

With it rotating all over the place you'd think the image would be tilting as you track objects, but the horizon remains the same.

I suspect that what we see on the screen has an additional level of post-processing rotation to present to the pilot a view that makes sense, but does not reflect the actual position of the optics. This suggests the optical system could make moves that are not seen so much as movements, but change the angle of the camera, and hence change the orientation of the flare.

That would particularly be the case when the system is jolted by turbulence, and has to maintain or re-acquire tracking.

Hence I suggest the "rotation" of the object is the result of a rotation of the ATFLIR system which is not visible in the video as it is adjusted out for the pilot view. However the optics are rotating, even if the image is not. This creates the rotation of the flare.

here's a very preliminary duplication of the flare rotation. I've mounted a camera with and identical axes configuration pointing at a light. Notice here there's no way of directly panning left and right from this position.

The light is a point source, but is flared in the image due to very slight smearing on the cover glass.

Now move the light to the right, and adjust the gimbal so it stays in the same position - i.e. tracking it. (as close as I could get, this mount has a limited range of motion.

Then level the horizon to keep the same visual orientation for the pilot:

Compare the two images:

We've got a saucer shaped infrared flare that rotates based on the camera optics.

More evidence for this is in this rotating flare on a similar camera. The image is not rotating, but the optics are.

 

[itsthematrix]

No expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I would have to agree with others on the white ball you see in the video. Playing DCS A-10 simulator on the PC, which is somewhat realistic, the white dot indicates where you are in relation to whatever you have locked-on with your targeting pod, so the moment it appears in the center as you are turning it is in front of you, like it has been said, 12olock position, the fact that it's higher above means it is at a distance and not close, but again, it's not that far.

I believe at least they had to have seen that at a distance and put it on lock, or that these pilots were complete newbies, and never seen any objects at that distance and decided to lock onto it. So im going with either A, these guys were newbies or B, they were seeing something, not a plane, but it was something. I would have investigated.

Personally I think you guys are probably correct on the Chilean video, but I guess we will never know with this one? I believe they are holding back more. I'm not claiming it's aliens or anything, just saying that if anyone would know, it's the US military, and i also agree it's kind of strange to see these videos.

I WANT TO BELIEVE

 

[Tom Churchill]

The oddest thing about this video seems to be the "rotation".

With it rotating all over the place you'd think the image would be tilting as you track objects, but the horizon remains the same.

I suspect that what we see on the screen has an additional level of post-processing rotation to present to the pilot a view that makes sense, but does not reflect the actual position of the optics.

If the aircraft did anything OTHER than bank at a consistent angle, then yes, you would see the image tilting. Gimbals are described by the number of axes -- something like this is almost positively a 4 axis stabilized imaging system -- 2 course outer axes followed by 2 fine inner axes. Cinematic gimbals like the Cineflex and GSS usually have a 5th axis to roll stabilize them so that the horizon is always level. This clearly doesn't. Some gimbals (such as the Litening Pod) will electronically roll stabilize the horizon -- maybe even newer versions of this, but the video we are seeing is showing what the image looks like at the focal plane array.

There is however, something worth noting with regards to it's configuration: All gimbals of this design suffer from a problem known as "keyhole" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyhole_problem ), or sometimes referred to as "gimbal lock" ( see the 2 dimensional description of it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal_lock ). For gimbals such as the Wescam MX series and most FLIR, keyhole occurs at a point directly beneath the aircraft -- pilots and sensor operators coordinate to avoid getting into this geometry. (Our company produces a free "pilot display" app for iOS that assists in this effort: https://churchillnavigation.com/pilot-display/ ) The AN/ASQ-228 is essentially a similar design of gimbal, but turned 90 degrees -- meaning they have a keyhole problem when looking directly ahead. I would guess the "stutter" in the video is related to this issue -- the gimbal not having enough control authority to follow the rate commands from the AVT (automatic video tracker). The issue would be much worse if they were looking directly ahead, rather than 2 degrees down. (The inner stages usually provide +/- a few degrees of stabilization, which might account for the stutter not being seen at exactly 0 degrees relative azimuth)

By the way, this is something you can easily replicate with your pan/tilt camera, Mick: Observe that when the camera is pointed "straight ahead", you can easily look at something along one axis, but not the other, but when pointed "45 degrees down", you can easily make the camera look in any direction. The same thing is happening here.

--Tom

 

[Mick West]

If the aircraft did anything OTHER than bank at a consistent angle, then yes, you would see the image tilting. Gimbals are described by the number of axes -- something like this is almost positively a 4 axis stabilized imaging system -- 2 course outer axes followed by 2 fine inner axes.

If the shape is due to flare, then I suspect it would come from streaks on the outer surface. Maybe from cleaning, or maybe from precipitation+airspeed.

So could it be that occasion movement of the coarse outer axes is responsible for the rotation of the shape of the IR flare? It's tracked from 54°L to 6°R, meaning it goes over 0° - which might mean some outer gimbal action was required. There's also a significant change in angle when lock is briefly lost.

 

[Tom Churchill]

If the shape is due to flare, then I suspect it would come from streaks on the outer surface. Maybe from cleaning, or maybe from precipitation+airspeed.
View attachment 30729

So could it be that occasion movement of the coarse outer axes is responsible for the rotation of the shape of the IR flare? It's tracked from 54°L to 6°R, meaning it goes over 0° - which might mean some outer gimbal action was required. There's also a significant change in angle when lock is briefly lost.

The outer axes are moving the entire time. I can't really speculate at this time on what causes the change in apparent rotation, but if it is flare, I would suspect it is the optics INSIDE the gimbal, not anything on the surface; but that's just a guess.

The disturbing thing about all these videos is that you start any analysis with one hand tied behind your back. No metadata is provided on when/where this was recorded, which normally I would think should be present on a frame-accurate basis. Why THIS particular 33 seconds of the recording? Were they recording before? After? What format was the recording in from the recorder? If the location and time can't be released, how was anyone able to request it in the first place? Etc., etc. TTS brags about provenance, but then they don't provide the FOIA letter, response, etc.

 

[Mick West]

Were they recording before? After?

That's particularly interesting to me, it would seem like there must be more video. And I suspect it would help support or eliminate the "rotating flare" hypothesis.

 

[Tom Churchill]

Something else I noticed: this gimbal has a common aperture -- that is, both the visible as well as the IR optical path go through the same window. This is relatively unusual -- the Raytheon MTS-B is similar in that regard, but most gimbals use separate windows for IR and visible cameras. Glass, while transparent to visible light, is opaque to mid-wave ("thermal") infrared (it just "sees" it's temperature). So the gimbal would need to have a window which is transparent to both visible and IR. I have *NO IDEA* what their window is made of (and I'm not an optical engineer), but a quick look at some of the materials which meet this criteria would leave me to believe that you can get some of these types of flaring/rotational effects through a window made of, for example, Magnesium Flouride, if it's orientation changes with respect to that of an IR emitter. Without knowing anything about the window material, it wouldn't surprise me if more compromises need to be made with a common aperture than when you are free to pick different materials for different wavelengths.

--Tom

 

[LucM]

I think the rotating optics theory is sound, people think because it is the "latest" or the "most advanced" system ever produced it is flawless, it is not..... the same for the AN/SPY-1B(V) radar of the USS Princeton, i read by Wikipedia the Princeton was the first to receive the SPY-1B upgrade in 1997. Do i have to remind people that the first upgrade could well be badly done, even 7 years after the fact up to november 2004 if nothing is corrected in between. Phased Array Radars seeing things at 80 000 feet then disappearing and seeing the "same" thing at 50 feet is simply a glitch, a stealth target disappearing at 80 000 feet and the radar interpreting its reappearance at 50 feet with a flock of seagulls. (no ufo new wave pun).

Damn software. I should know, i am a software engineer. One pal once told me the software inside the Canadian frigates navigational system was utter crap. So bad software do happen, even in the military.

As i write this, Leslie Kean is on CNN saying she can't tell if it's alien or not but if it quacks and walks like an alien it must be alien. Well, no, it can be a secret anti-ballistic missile.

I wouldn't throw away the sighting of the pilot. He says the water was churning like a downed airliner... mmhhh why not a sub having just fired something or going under, the more so if a plane is coming by. I'm sure top secret missions are not known to the "normal" military. A white pill thing going very fast.... mmhhh.... some kind of missile maybe. The anti-ballistic missile trials were done near the Pacific West Coast.

He also says that thing was stopping, moving fast, zigzaging.... a visual lock on it? i don't think so. He just interpreted all the data thrown together (radar, ATFLIR, visual) to fit a pattern that cannot be made. I read somehwere the voice of the girl operator on the Princeton was very alarmed, and you have a pilot a firm believer of UFO (his colleagues ridiculed him with alien movies on the Nimitz) and then you have a believer becoming a contactee.

Still CNN viewers who are clueless are now preparing for the alien invasion, the worst (and only) fake news CNN has done.

 

[Mike N]

The corroboration suggests that there is an actual object. I currently think the most likely explanation is an experimental cruise missile with the ability to hover, akin to SpaceX's reusable rockets, and also with an ability to relaunch from a hover. This would be consistent with the Princeton's reports of the objects rapid descent before hovering over the water, the reports of the shape of the object and of its rapid acceleration.

We know that the technology for rockets to hover has existed in some form since at least the mid 90's with the DC-X initiative. The big assumption that would have to be made for this theory is that the military had at the time the ability to relaunch from a hover, but perhaps this would be easier to do with something intended to be a cruise missile rather than a reusable rocket.

 

[derwoodii]

a bit more media attention so i suspect this case will bubble in profile over next few weeks so good to have nice head start analyzing, addressing or testing the various claims well done to MB contributors

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-20/evidence-suggests-aliens-may-have-reached-earth/9275134

A former US military intelligence official has claimed there is evidence that could suggest aliens have reached Earth.

Key points:

• The US Defence Department funnelled $28.7 million into program investigating UFOs
• Footage captured by US fighter jet shows "rotating" aircraft
• Former military intelligence official resigns because of secrecy around the program

Luis Elizondo, a former Pentagon official who recently led a government program to research potential UFOs, believes there is secrecy surrounding the program and told CNN, "There is very compelling evidence that we may not be alone".

from the article it seems they have dated the event but im not sure if correct or have i miss read & confused it with the many other FLIR sightings

Footage of UFOs investigated showed US fighter jets chasing a fast moving aircraft off the coast of San Diego in 2004.

The footage was captured by a US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet and pilots on board can be heard describing what they are witnessing.

"It's a f***ing drone, bro," a pilot is heard saying.

The pilots notice the aircraft is flying against the wind and claim it's rotating.

Following the release of the footage, one of the pilots, Commander David Fravor, told The New York Times: "It accelerated like nothing I've ever seen."

 

[Robert Page]

This isn't the Nimitz case, it's an case of unknown location and time. People have linked it to the Nimitz case, but there's no official verification.

And there's no confirmation that what is seen on radar matches what is seen in the F/A-18's FLIR. Consider they said there's a whole fleet of them, but we only see one.

Yeah.. it's so weird that the media keeps playing this clip side by side with Fravor's testimony..did he actually confirm that this is it?
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/12/19/us/pilot-david-fravor-ufo-jim-sciutto-outfront-cnntv/index.html

 

[Kearnu]

Is this the clip you are talking about, Robert Page? I am also unsure if the two different videos shown is of the incident that Fravor witnessed...

All footage aside, what would be the possible explanations for Commander David Fravor's testimony below? He is claiming that four personal were witness to this...

[missing video]

 

[deirdre]

THE NYT says the location and date had not been released.

Officials with the program have also studied videos of encounters between unknown objects and American military aircraft — including one released in August of a whitish oval object, about the size of a commercial plane, chased by two Navy F/A-18F fighter jets from the aircraft carrier Nimitz off the coast of San Diego in 2004.

http://archive.is/bFdkR

The program collected video and audio recordings of reported U.F.O. incidents, including footage from a Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet showing an aircraft surrounded by some kind of glowing aura traveling at high speed and rotating as it moves. The Navy pilots can be heard trying to understand what they are seeing. "There's a whole fleet of them," one exclaims. Defense officials declined to release the location and date of the incident.

 

[Kearnu]

Update: I-Team Exclusive: Sen. Reid discusses UFO study. More information on the program will be released in next days.

The contract was posted for months. The winning bid came from Las Vegas space entrepreneur Robert Bigelow, a billionaire who had funded his own UFO studies for years. Bigelow built secure facilities inside his aerospace company.

At its peak, the study had 46 scientists working at the Nevada facility, writing reports and analyzing data that came in from the military. Rapid response teams were dispatched to the scene of UFO events. Over five years, the project cost a total of 22 million. it wasn't a money maker for Bigelow.

"I'm sure the reason it helped is that he gave the best cost. He was willing to build the infrastructure and build everything on his own because he liked the topic," Reid says.

In some news stories about the UFO study, anonymous staffers say Reid stopped supporting the study because it produced no solid information.

So, why did the study end? Reid and others involved in the project say one factor is that intelligence officials were petrified that someone would find out about it and it would end up on the front page of a newspaper.

And there were other officials who had religious objections.

The I-Team will have more exclusive content Wednesday, including specifics on what was learned during the study, and which UFO incidents were the most unusual.

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

If the shape is due to flare, then I suspect it would come from streaks on the outer surface. Maybe from cleaning, or maybe from precipitation+airspeed.
View attachment 30729

So could it be that occasion movement of the coarse outer axes is responsible for the rotation of the shape of the IR flare? It's tracked from 54°L to 6°R, meaning it goes over 0° - which might mean some outer gimbal action was required. There's also a significant change in angle when lock is briefly lost.

Plastic is what you need to cover the wavelength range, and also for anisotropic scattering.

 

[Mick West]

Plastic is what you need to cover the wavelength range, and also for anisotropic scattering.
View attachment 30736

That does sound like something that would contribute to flare/glare.

It would see like the obvious thing to do would be to try to replicate the video. If the military were genuinely interested they could just get one jet to follow another at various distances, and film the whole thing with their ATFLIR. It could be done just as part of normal training.

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

That does sound like something that would contribute to flare/glare.

It would see like the obvious thing to do would be to try to replicate the video. If the military were genuinely interested they could just get one jet to follow another at various distances, and film the whole thing with their ATFLIR. It could be done just as part of normal training.

The alternatives such as sodium chloride and potassium bromide are not very robust. zinc selenide looks yellow.
https://www.edmundoptics.com/resour...e-correct-material-for-infrared-applications/

 

[LucM]

It would see like the obvious thing to do would be to try to replicate the video. If the military were genuinely interested they could just get one jet to follow another at various distances, and film the whole thing with their ATFLIR. It could be done just as part of normal training.

Not when the boss of the AAV investigation bureau with his 20-something million$ is a UFO believer.

 

[Henrik Liland]

I'm thinking the shape around the object is some kind of IR flare/glare. We know that the shape of a very bright IR source, like the engine of a plane, can be much bigger than the object itself, like with this A340

But that doesn't explain extreme acceleration reported by pilots and ground staff.