Original Flir1, Gimbal, and Go Fast UFO "Raw" Video Files

[Mick West]

update april-29-2020
On April 27, the US Navy released official versions of these three UFO videos. All videos are the same length as older versions. FLIR1 is slightly higher bitrate than the TTSA version, but worse quality than the 2007 F4 version, even though F4 is lower resolution. GOFAST and GIMBAL videos are the same resolution at double the bitrate, which is significantly better. These versions of GIMBAL and GOFAST should be used for all future analyses, however, for FLIR, the 2007 leaked F4.MPG version via archive.org appears to be better quality.

Here are the direct links

https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/sites/g/files/jejdrs566/files/2020-04/1 - FLIR.mp4
https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/sites/g/files/jejdrs566/files/2020-04/3 - GOFAST.wmv
https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/sites/g/files/jejdrs566/files/2020-04/2 - GIMBAL.wmv

https://web.archive.org/web/20070209104330/http://www.vision-unlimited.de/extern/f4.mpg

And mirrored locally:

• FLIR.mp4 (better quality 2007 leak version f4-2007.mpg)
• GIMBAL.wmv
• GOFAST.wmv

HQ MP4 versions

https://www.metabunk.org/f/2-GIMBAL-CROP-HQ.mp4
https://www.metabunk.org/f/3-GOFAST-CROP-HQ.mp4 (used in Sitrec)

A slightly better crop of converted to MP4 video, no blank frames at the start (Used in Sitrec)
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec-videos/public/2 - Gimbal-WMV2PRORES-CROP-428x428.mp4

FLIR1 aspect ratio corrected to 242x242 (was 242x216) (used in Sitrec)
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec-videos/public/f4-aspect-corrected-242x242-was-242x216.mp4

Via an anonymous source, here are the "original" versions of the three "UFO" videos that To The Stars Academy says have been cleared for public release by the Department of Defense.

It's hard to say exactly how "original" they are, however they seem to be at least one generation better than all the versions released so far, in that they don't have captions overlaid. However, it's also possible that these are different versions of a common ancestor file, and not a direct ancestor of the released files.

The files are:

flir1_981.mp4 - The "Nimitz / Tic-Tac" video 352x262, 432 Kbps
gimble_vid..._492.mp4 - The "Gimbal" video with the visual rotation of a hot object
gofast..._737.mp4 - The "Go Fast" video of a cooler object with fast apparent motion

The Flir1 video seems similar to the old leaked f4-2007 file. But it's at a lower bitrate, and slightly higher vertical resolution, which seems to be blank lines.

The Gimbal and GoFast files though are of lower resolution than the published files. As far as I can tell, the published files are simply upscaled, which adds a layer of blurriness. Here's a comparison

Then scaled up. The gimble_vid..._492 is on the right.

While it might seem like the lower resolution file is worse, if the higher resolution file is just upscaled and re-encoded, then it loses information.

Here's YouTube versions of the above, uploaded in original resolution


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd7K5LafDF8


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCt837R2Sbs


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4hQTFVU8wE

 

[Mick West]

Quite possible they were the files from these CDs.

 

[Curt Collins]

The question from seeing the disc packages:
Where is video no. 4?

 

[Mick West]

The question from seeing the disc packages:
Where is video no. 4?

I think that could be simply a dump of data, not four different videos. A CD can hold 700MB though, and the files in total were only about 22MB total, so if that's all there was then they would very easily have fitted on one disk.

 

[igoddard]

With this superior copy it's easy to see rotation in the sky noise matching rotation of the target.

And I also just noticed that the horizon-line marked by the top edge of the clouds also slightly rotates with target rotation. That horizon-line rotation occurs from frame 5314A to 5317A. Somehow that escaped my notice before. Perhaps an increment of imperfection in the derotation mechanism?

 

[Tom Mellett]

Mick, so the Nimitz TicTac video has no sound? When was it added?

But I really want to ask you about the gimble video because the TTSA faithful on their Facebook group are adamant about you failing to account for the small round light object (OK, glowing orb) that is slowly traversing from the upper left corner to the top center by the end of the 35 seconds. Reminds me of playing the ancient Atari Pong game.

The point that the TTSA faithful make is that when the pilot says: "There's a whole fleet of them. Look at the ASA!", he is acknowledging that one of the fleet is that glowing orb in the upper left and that there are many more out there beyond the reach of the camera.

 

[Mick West]

But I really want to ask you about the gimble video because the TTSA faithful on their Facebook group are adamant about you failing to account for the small round light object (OK, glowing orb) that is slowly traversing from the upper left corner to the top center by the end of the 35 seconds. Reminds me of playing the ancient Atari Pong game.

This thing?

It's part of the HUD. It's a visual cue of the heading of the target. Watch it in the Go Fast video.

 

[Mick West]

Mick, so the Nimitz TicTac video has no sound? When was it added?

It has sound. Same as in later clips, just low frequency hum/noise.

 

[Tom Mellett]

This thing?

It's part of the HUD. It's a visual cue of the heading of the target. Watch it in the Go Fast video.

Thanks, Mick! So it's not part of the Starfleet ready to invade us on Independence Day (which just happens to be today!)? What a bummer! So many members of the Tom deLonge Hardware Saucer Cult will not be amused, and will draw up yet another Bill of Indictment against you!

 

[Robert Mcintyre]

Given the USN has now acknowledged these videos and the fact that they're now in the public domain it would be nice of them to release the original version of FLIR1 i.e. non degraded, if they have it, but I doubt they will.

 

[DocPosey]

[...] a month after these UFO videos went public the navy released a patent illustrating how a oval or round shaped craft and also a triangle shaped craft could operate using an inertial mass reduction device..like someone said if this was a truly an unknown craft operating in an active training area the CO would not have sent out fighters with 0 weapons loadout..trust me... I was in the Navy.. Everyone would be in route ready to deter a spy craft...sounds to me like they were just testing and calibrating their new radar equipment that had recently been installed on the USS Princeton so we dont accidentally shoot at our own craft or very least be distracted by it.not to mention airports are supposed to start updating their radars to the same type system so they wouldnt want airports reporting UFOs constantly when their just our own classified craft..but after releasing the patents and the navy personally vouching for the operability of those craft...sounds like the govt wants every country's leaders to know we have these technologies and highly doubt these patents are truly accurate..sounds to me like disinformation to keep our adversaries spinning their wheels. Not saying life doesnt exist else where in the universe...but these are definitely ours....what do you think?

 

[jackfrostvc]

Pretty sure in the Gimbal video they talk about L+S as per below.
Hard to tell clearly, but sounds like they say something like "Is that on L and S though"
Anyone know what L+S is?

 

[deirdre]

Pretty sure in the Gimbal video they talk about L+S as per below.
Hard to tell clearly, but sounds like they say something like "Is that on L and S though"
Anyone know what L+S is?

View attachment 39626

There are threads on the individual TTSA 'events' released. the L&S on the Gimbal thread is first discussed on page 2.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ny...ncounter-with-unknown-object.9333/post-216580

you can also Google "radar L&S" and I see links explaining the meaning too. I don't want to link here as your question is off topic for this thread.

 

[Agent K]

The DOD officially released the three videos. It's still not the raw data.

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Re...nse-on-the-release-of-historical-navy-videos/

​

Statement by the Department of Defense on the Release of Historical Navy Videos

APRIL 27, 2020
​

The Department of Defense has authorized the release of three unclassified Navy videos, one taken in November 2004 and the other two in January 2015, which have been circulating in the public domain after unauthorized releases in 2007 and 2017. The U.S. Navy previously acknowledged that these videos circulating in the public domain were indeed Navy videos. After a thorough review, the department has determined that the authorized release of these unclassified videos does not reveal any sensitive capabilities or systems, and does not impinge on any subsequent investigations of military air space incursions by unidentified aerial phenomena. DOD is releasing the videos in order to clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real, or whether or not there is more to the videos. The aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as "unidentified." The released videos can be found at the Naval Air Systems Command FOIA Reading Room: https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents.

 

[Getoffthisplanet]

The DOD officially released the three videos. It's still not the raw data.

Haven't checked the others yet, but DOD's Gimbal video is higher bitrate and higher frame rate:

 

[Mick West]

Here are the direct links, as that page will get updated later with new files.

https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/sites/g/files/jejdrs566/files/2020-04/1 - FLIR.mp4
https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/sites/g/files/jejdrs566/files/2020-04/3 - GOFAST.wmv
https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/sites/g/files/jejdrs566/files/2020-04/2 - GIMBAL.wmv

Also attached to this post.

 

[Mick West]

Haven't checked the others yet, but DOD's Gimbal video is higher bitrate and higher frame rate:

No, it's the same framerate (29.97fps). It's double the bitrate though, so you can see things better

It has an encoding date of UTC 2015-01-25 02:29:16.197

 

[Getoffthisplanet]

No, it's the same framerate (29.97fps). It's double the bitrate though, so you can see things better

It has an encoding date of UTC 2015-01-25 02:29:16.197

Ah, right. I was looking at Nominal frame rate.

Maybe I need a better info tool, where are you getting the encode date?

Using MPC-HC or Mediainfo I see UTC 2020-04-27 16:19:42.972 for Gimbal.

 

[Mick West]

Maybe I need a better info tool, where are you getting the encode date?

I use Invisor, on the Mac:

Name: 2 - GIMBAL.wmv
Size: 13.5 MB (13517612 bytes)
Kind: Windows Media Video
UTI: com.microsoft.windows-media-wmv
Location: /Users/mick/Documents/Debunking/Navy Official Video Release
Created: April 27, 2020 at 8:12:40 AM
Modified: April 27, 2020 at 8:13:59 AM
Downloaded From: https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/sites/g/files/jejdrs566/files/2020-04/2%20-%20GIMBAL.wmv,
https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents
Container
Format: Windows Media
Duration: 34 s 467 ms
Overall bit rate mode: Constant
Overall bit rate: 3 138 kb/s
Maximum Overall bit rate: 3 123 kb/s
Encoded date: UTC 2015-01-25 02:29:16.197
Video
ID: 2
Format: WMV1
Codec ID: WMV1
Codec ID/Info: Windows Media Video 7
Description of the codec: Windows Media Video V7
Duration: 34 s 468 ms
Bit rate mode: Constant
Bit rate: 3 000 kb/s
Width: 640 pixels
Height: 480 pixels
Pixel aspect ratio: 1.000
Display aspect ratio: 4:3
Frame rate: 29.970 (29970/1000) FPS
Nominal frame rate: 30.000 FPS
Frame count: 1033
Bit depth: 8 bits
Bits/(Pixel*Frame): 0.326
Stream size: 12.9 MB (95.6%)
Language: English (United States)
Audio
ID: 1
Format: WMA
Format version: Version 2
Codec ID: 161
Codec ID/Info: Windows Media Audio
Description of the codec: Windows Media Audio 9.2 -  96 kbps, 44 kHz, stereo (A/V) 1-pass CBR
Duration: 34 s 467 ms
Bit rate mode: Constant
Bit rate: 96.0 kb/s
Channel(s): 2 channels
Sampling rate: 44.1 kHz
Bit depth: 16 bits
Stream size: 414 KB (3.1%)
Language: English (United States)

 

[Getoffthisplanet]

I use Invisor, on the Mac:

Thanks. Wow. Very disappointing. I've just tried half a dozen Windows programs and not one can extract that same date from the metadata.

 

[Mick West]

Thanks. Wow. Very disappointing. I've just tried half a dozen Windows programs and not one can extract that same date from the metadata.

Try the "Exiftool" command line tool (there might be GUI version as well).

Micks-iMac-Pro-2:~ mick$ exiftool /Users/mick/Documents/Debunking/Navy\ Official\ Video\ Release/2\ -\ GIMBAL.wmv 
ExifTool Version Number         : 10.80
File Name                       : 2 - GIMBAL.wmv
Directory                       : /Users/mick/Documents/Debunking/Navy Official Video Release
File Size                       : 13 MB
File Modification Date/Time     : 2020:04:27 08:13:59-07:00
File Access Date/Time           : 2020:04:27 08:13:59-07:00
File Inode Change Date/Time     : 2020:04:27 12:16:59-07:00
File Permissions                : rw-r--r--
File Type                       : WMV
File Type Extension             : wmv
MIME Type                       : video/x-ms-wmv
File ID                         : D912C624-8814-4551-A579-DA815B93FD9E
File Length                     : 13517612
Creation Date                   : 2015:01:25 02:29:16Z
Data Packets                    : 1689
Duration                        : 0:00:37
Send Duration                   : 0:00:36
Preroll                         : 3000
Flags                           : 2
Min Packet Size                 : 8000
Max Packet Size                 : 8000
Max Bitrate                     : 3.12 Mbps
Is VBR                          : False
Audio Codec Name                : Windows Media Audio 9.2
Audio Codec Description         :  96 kbps, 44 kHz, stereo (A/V) 1-pass CBR
Video Codec Name                : Windows Media Video V7
Video Codec Description         : 
Audio Codec ID                  : Windows Media Audio V2 V7 V8 V9 / DivX audio (WMA) / Alex AC3 Audio
Audio Channels                  : 2
Audio Sample Rate               : 44100
Stream Type                     : Video
Error Correction Type           : No Error Correction
Time Offset                     : 0 s
Stream Number                   : 2
Image Width                     : 640
Image Height                    : 480
Image Size                      : 640x480
Megapixels                      : 0.307

 

[Getoffthisplanet]

Try the "Exiftool" command line tool (there might be GUI version as well).

Oh yeah, forgot about that one. Been a long time since I've seen it. Thanks.

Exiftool was still not reporting the 2015 date for me. So, I downloaded the file again and now it's giving the 2015 correctly.

I'm assuming something went wrong with the download? The navair.navy.mil server did seem to be taking a long time to respond.

Here's the metadata from the file I downloaded this morning.

The File ID, File Length, and Creation Date metadata fields are different and Number Of Frames field was added:

---- ExifTool ----
ExifTool Version Number         : 11.97
---- File ----
File Name                       : 2 - GIMBAL.wmv
Directory                       : .
File Size                       : 13 MB
File Modification Date/Time     : 2020:04:27 11:19:43-05:00
File Access Date/Time           : 2020:04:27 11:19:43-05:00
File Creation Date/Time         : 2020:04:27 11:09:48-05:00
File Permissions                : rw-rw-rw-
File Type                       : WMV
File Type Extension             : wmv
MIME Type                       : video/x-ms-wmv
---- ASF ----
File ID                         : C8202B3E-CA45-4C64-851F-D3C0A2F6727E  <------------
File Length                     : 13526424                              <------------
Creation Date                   : 2020:04:27 16:19:42Z                  <------------
Data Packets                    : 1689
Duration                        : 0:00:38
Send Duration                   : 0:00:36
Preroll                         : 3000
Flags                           : 2
Min Packet Size                 : 8000
Max Packet Size                 : 8000
Max Bitrate                     : 3.12 Mbps
Is VBR                          : False
Is VBR                          : False
Number Of Frames                : 1031                                  <------------
Is VBR                          : False
Audio Codec Name                : Windows Media Audio 9.2
Audio Codec Description         :  96 kbps, 44 kHz, stereo (A/V) 1-pass CBR
Video Codec Name                : Windows Media Video V7
Video Codec Description         : 
Stream Type                     : Audio
Error Correction Type           : Audio Spread
Time Offset                     : 0 s
Stream Number                   : 1
Audio Codec ID                  : Windows Media Audio V2 V7 V8 V9 / DivX audio (WMA) / Alex AC3 Audio
Audio Channels                  : 2
Audio Sample Rate               : 44100
Stream Type                     : Video
Error Correction Type           : No Error Correction
Time Offset                     : 0 s
Stream Number                   : 2
Image Width                     : 640
Image Height                    : 480
---- Composite ----
Image Size                      : 640x480
Megapixels                      : 0.307

 

[Mick West]

Oh yeah, forgot about that one. Been a long time since I've seen it. Thanks.

Exiftool was still not reporting the 2015 date for me. So, I downloaded the file again and now it's giving the 2015 correctly.

I'm assuming something went wrong with the download? The navair.navy.mil server did seem to be taking a long time to respond.

Here's the metadata from the file I downloaded this morning.

The File ID, File Length, and Creation Date metadata fields are different and Number Of Frames field was added:

Odd. Can you email me that file? mick@mickwest.com, or just upload it here.

 

[Mick West]

I made a quick response video


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus

 

[Getoffthisplanet]

Odd. Can you email me that file? mick@mickwest.com, or just upload it here.

Email sent.

I did just quickly visually compare them in AE, they seem identical.

But, I did notice that Windows File Explorer reports the wmv as 9KB larger. Got to be a download error.

 

[Mick West]

Email sent.

I did just quickly visually compare them in AE, they seem identical.

But, I did notice that Windows File Explorer reports the wmv as 9KB larger. Got to be a download error.

Sorry for the delay, just revisiting this today.

It's very odd, and I can't see how it's possibly a download error. They are clearly different files, but visually seem identical. I've attached your version here.

There's two main possibilities:

1 - They put up the wrong version, then removed it and put up the right version
2 - Some software on your end adjusted the metadata

The actual video data in the files (the vast bulk of the data) is unchanged. Doing a binary compare shows only changes in the header at the start

Then there is an 8686 bytes extra chunk of what looks like some kind of lookup table, which only exists in the "older" file.

And finally at the end of the file.

The actual compressed video data is unchanged between the two files. So there would be zero visual differences.

Here's what the header changes amount to:

This all seems very innocuous. I'd lean towards #2, and think you opened the file in some software that added the extra data. Perhaps you opened it, then saved it from within the viewer to a different location?

 

[Mick West]

Since WMV is a rather awkward format, I've converted them to mp4. This was a bit tricky to do without losing details. I used Handbrake, H.264 encoding, no filters (i.e. no deinterlace or decomb), auto-crop, RF0 (lossless). Which results in big (80MB) files, but should give the same images as the WMV versions.

There might be a way to just re-encapsulate the raw data in a .MOV format, which would be better, but I don't know if you can, or how to do it.

https://www.metabunk.org/f/2-GIMBAL-CROP-HQ.mp4
https://www.metabunk.org/f/3-GOFAST-CROP-HQ.mp4

FLIR is already in mp4 format, but here's an enhanced version of the better f4.mpg, cropped and upscaled, for easier viewing. Not a reference copy though.
https://www.metabunk.org/f/f4-larger-sharper-trimmed-edges.mp4

 

[Getoffthisplanet]

This all seems very innocuous. I'd lean towards #2, and think you opened the file in some software that added the extra data. Perhaps you opened it, then saved it from within the viewer to a different location?

Exhaustive examination, nice.

I am 100% certain I only downloaded and saved it using Firefox 75's built-in down loader.

Absolutely no other save beyond that, that's just not something I do unless I'm messing around in After Effects or exporting from Handbrake.

Immediately after downloading I opened it in MPC-HC, watched it, then closed it.

Due to the nature of file save in MPC-HC I would've had to clicked on "Save a Copy" then picked a location to save to before the action was initiated.

Definitely not something I ever do or remember doing.

And just in case, I tested it and did a "Save a Copy" from MPC-HC and it does not alter any of the metadata.

As you said, probably innocuous. But, it does seem strange.

 

[notdej]

why are the 3 vids so short? Surely they would have filmed for longer than 30secs & 1.5 mins under the circumstances.
It makes me wonder if the full-length vids (if this is the case) actually reveal what they really are eventually...

If this has already been discussed then my apologies... Had no time to read through everything in the thread

 

[jmmrios]

about the gimbal video: Note the device rotates 90 degrees on its transverse axis while the horizon line moves at the minimum angle of inclination! It's necessary to see the relationship between the device and the horizon line that don't correspond when the device rotates 90 degrees on its transverse axis. In any recording by any visualization system, the whole set would have to rotate 90 degrees and that doesn't happen. This is very clear in the segment presented.

 

[Mick West]

about the gimbal video: Note the device rotates 90 degrees on its transverse axis while the horizon line moves at the minimum angle of inclination! It's necessary to see the relationship between the device and the horizon line that don't correspond when the device rotates 90 degrees on its transverse axis. In any recording by any visualization system, the whole set would have to rotate 90 degrees and that doesn't happen. This is very clear in the segment presented.

Yes, that's what is explained here:

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

Basically The rotation of the camera is de-rotated to match the bank angle of the plane. Horizon rotates with the plane. Glare rotates with the camera.

 

[jmmrios]

Yes, that's what is explained here:

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

Basically The rotation of the camera is de-rotated to match the bank angle of the plane. Horizon rotates with the plane. Glare rotates with the camera.

thank you

 

[jmmrios]

Is there any evidence in the Flir-1 video that we are dealing with a probable aircraft/airliner like some people seem to believe/suspect and want us to believe?
If the object seen in the Flir-1 video was an aircraft, we comfortably seated behind a computer (armchair investigators) would know it and we could prove it. Why? Simply because it would be visible in three different ways. How is that so?
First, you have to understand what a heat signature is and what it isn't, I uploaded an image below for you to understand. Since a few years, I've been watching IR videos, met/talked (IRL & URL) with/to people who work with targeting pods both in the US and in France either as a technician or as an engineer, talked (still do) to former fighter pilots and everybody seems to agree and for the same reasons, what we see in the Flir-1 video does NOT look like any kind of aircraft. Why?
There are three reasons...
The first one is that in Tv mode (Flir-1), regardless of how blurry the video is + compression artifacts and since the aspect angle is not close to 0° but close to 45° or more (+-90° at the end of the video), the tail section of an hypothetical aircraft should be visible even if the video was out of focus. Simply because the tail section of any aircraft is large. I would not be so sure if the aspect angle was close to 0° because the tail section would be seen from the front or from the back, in other words, we would only see its edge. This is not the case at all in the Flir-1 video.
The second reason is because when the target/heat signature is seen sideways with an aspect angle close to if not equal to 90° (target is seen from its portside) and when the IR glare is gone (shortly after Tv mode), we see what's called its total IR signature. We should then see two things, the shape of the fuselage and its tail section since there's no more glare, it's not a point target (see image below) and the aspact angle should allow us to see its fuselage (outline). A point target/track is a heat signature of an object too far to be identified (see image below)
Last but not least, the third reason. We should see heat radiating from its engines or at least one engine since the object/hypothetical aircraft is seen sideways.
Do we see that? Not at all, we see an object radiating heat and/or reflecting heat from different sources like solar, sky and earth radiations.
Now, do we know any EO/IR (i.e: visible and IR spectrum) video that could be used for comparison? We do, thanks Dave aka "Eye in the Sky" who filmed an airliner (daytime) seen from 31 nmi (slant range) @ cpa (closest point of approach) and beyond visual range with an aspect angle of +-90°, just like what is visible at the end of the Flir-1 video. Both targeting systems are also pretty similar since they both use an MWIR sensor, the main difference is Tv mode since it's not in black & white.
As you can see, even beyond visual range (naked eye), the total heat signature of the airliner allows us to see its fuselage and tail section but as expected since engines radiate more heat than anything else, its exhaust is clearly visible, so visible that it sometimes take over (glare) the whole target and that it is the only thing visible. When we compare the heat signature of this airliner with the heat signature from the Flir-1 video, we should approximately see the same thing but we don't, it's not even REMOTELY identical.
If there was evidence in the video alone that this could have been an aircraft, this would exactly be the kind of direct evidence we would be looking for.
The simple conclusion that can be drawn from just focusing on the video alone is that it's just not an aircraft. Whatever it is and as far as a mundane hypothesis goes, the truth is elsewhere...

There are other reasons why the aircraft hypothesis is impossible to validate but I did not expose them here, feel free to ask me in the comments.

 

[jarlrmai]

In the Chilean Navy video we see a heat signature and IR contrast that masks the fuselage of the of the airliner. So all we are seeing is heat from the engines.