PR051 - Syria UAP 2021- Apparent Instantaneous Acceleration

[Nourali]

I made some videos to help compare the background motion frame by frame before / after the zip off. I used the frames from the 25% slowed down portion as suggested above.

Here I've compared the frames just prior to the zip off to get a baseline for how fast the background was moving. We can see significant horizontal motion right->left, with only a slight vertical top->bottom component.
View attachment 91178
View attachment 91179

Here's the first frame of the zip off. This is the one most people have had trouble with, but if you look closely the left->right motion is about half as fast as before, and the top->down motion is about twice as fast. The background motion starts to change at exactly the same time as the zip off.
View attachment 91180

Here's the second frame of the zip off. We already see a very clear, very dramatic change in the background motion. By the second frame the right->left motion of the background has disappeared entirely, leaving only a significant top->down motion.
View attachment 91181

Notice that there is a rectangular feature at the top of the motion blur in the first frame of the zip off. The same rectangular feature appears at the same spot in the second frame. The motion blur of a circular object would not be rectangular of course, so this is clearly a compression artifact. I think the artifacts during the first frame make it a bit more difficult to see that the length of the motion blur is significantly longer during the second frame, up to twice as long. The zip off is not instant. It increases in speed gradually over two frames, and there is a corresponding gradual change in the background motion as the "right->left" component grinds to a halt over two frames.

This is all perfectly consistent with parallax due to the change in the camera tracking mode. But suppose someone still thinks the first frame of the zip off is ambiguous, and makes the objection that we should not prefer the parallax explanation simply because it is a priori much more likely than a sudden acceleration. Based on what we have learned above about how the camera tracking works we can make a much stronger case that essentially rules out an instant acceleration, arguing that If the object had suddenly accelerated it almost certainly would not look like the video that we have.

If the object had suddenly accelerated then we would not expect the background motion to change so dramatically within two frames. Some have argued that the object's acceleration causes a loss of lock. But we've seen that for this type of camera a loss of lock does not immediately change the background motion, coasting instead for a couple seconds. And more importantly we know, based on all the evidence discussed above, that the camera had already lost the lock 2 seconds prior to the zip off. The camera was not visually tracking the object at the time of the zip off, so there would be no automatic response whatsoever if the object had really suddenly accelerated at that time.

Some have argued that maybe the operator changed the tracking mode manually in response to the object zipping off. But this is not possible within two frames, up to 60ms. There is some delay in transmitting the image, possibly over long distances, to the operator, then transmitting any command back to the reaper. And more importantly the typical human reaction time is nowhere near that fast.

Article:

Elite athletes have reaction times of about 150 ms, and elite gamers are probably close to that, if perhaps slightly slower. Good gamers have reaction times of about 250 ms, and average gamers about 300 ms. Non-gamers have reaction times of about 350 ms.

Source: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3383668.3419891

I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that either the operator randomly, without prior knowledge, just happened to change the tracking mode within two frames of a never before seen instant acceleration, nor would they argue that the craft somehow knew the camera was about to change tracking modes and chose to zip off at the same time just to trick us.

So if an object's sudden acceleration coupled with a dramatic change in the background motion within two frames cannot be automatic, nor manual and almost certainly not a coincidence, then it is essentially ruled out. Parallax is not merely more likely. It is essentially the only thing that fits the data.

I think there is a possible perceptual trap here. The apparent reduction of the right-to-left background motion around the zip-off may not necessarily reflect a real, sharp change in the camera motion. In a low-quality IR video and a poorly textured background, one motion component can easily dominate or mask another. So I would be cautious about reading a precise change in motion just from the apparent background drift.

But even if we accept that the right-to-left/easting component is reduced around that moment, I don't think this alone explains the zip-off. The important northing change that occurs after the zip-off, despite being significant, does not make the object leave the frame downward, let alone as abruptly as the object disappears to the right. So the explanation would require the easting component to change much more radically, and far more suddenly, than the northing component.

That is the part I don't see demonstrated. If the object's rapid disappearance to the right is supposed to be caused by a change in camera motion, then we should see a corresponding abrupt change in the background or in the MGRS-derived movement. But the background does not seem to show such a dramatic easting shift, and the MGRS data do not clearly show one either (even if, indeed, it seems to slow down slightly).

 

[flarkey]

But even if we accept that the right-to-left/easting component is reduced around that moment, I don't think this alone explains the zip-off. The important northing change that occurs after the zip-off, despite being significant, does not make the object leave the frame downward, let alone as abruptly as the object disappears to the right. So the explanation would require the easting component to change much more radically, and far more suddenly, than the northing component.

You've almost got it , but you're thinking in 2d, not 3d. - The easting component does indeed change more radically , but not in the MGRS value of the target (ie the point on the ground). It is the other end of the line-of-sight that changes - i.e the platform location - because the drone is heading west at this point. There may be little change in the MGRS value produced by the camera boresight, but the other end and the platform position Lat & Long means that an object roughly halfway between the platform and the ground must exit the screen to the right as the line-of-sight changes. This is why the object zips out of frame. The horizontal component of the parallax effect was being countered by the camera automatic tracking, but this stopped when the tracking was lost and the large horizontal component of the drone (i.e. its forward motion) causes a rapid increase of the horizontal component of parallax and therefore the object 'zips' off.

I hope this diagram explains it. If the platform is moving then the MGRS Easting & northings might not change at all during a massive change in the line of sight.

From Sitrec: My graphic above covers the last few seconds of this. Keep looking the LoS point of convergeance (middle of the red X) - see how that point quickly drifts to the right just as lock is lost.

 

[Sam_Vimes]

Well, Marik and his happy band of sockpuppets have me blocked (One week in). I'll keep digging. I dropped what I think is the last word in the "Orb in the Clouds" debate and tagged a few folks.

 

[Sam_Vimes]

flarkey, I took a different approach to illustrating that, and expanded on it a bit.


Source: https://x.com/blessedlyunwoke/status/2063240053648691638

 

[Nourali]

ENDGAME?

I think most of the points I'm going to mention have already been raised here. But framed this way, the argument becomes clearer.

Marik made an interesting observation. He pointed out that before the zipp-off, the camera/background motion appears diagonal: the camera is moving to the right and upward. Yet when the zipp-off starts, the object seems to leave almost horizontally to the right.


Source: https://x.com/MvonRen/status/2062627823349907723?s=20


At first glance, that does look like a real problem for the camera-motion explanation.

As @Mick West has shown with several examples of zipp-offs, an object should generally leave the frame in the direction of the camera sweep. For example:


Source: https://x.com/MickWest/status/2059073527383482770?s=20


So if the initial camera sweep is diagonal, one would expect the object to leave along that same diagonal. Even a sudden stop of the camera motion would not, by itself, explain why the object exits on an almost horizontal trajectory. That is why I initially found Marik's argument fairly strong.

But there is one key point that changes the situation: The mistake, in my view, is assuming that the vertical motion only starts after the zipp-off, when the system switches to RATE G. That is not what the background analysis suggests.


Source: https://x.com/MvonRen/status/2062463685235478921?s=20


I tried to compare the motion of the background before the zipp-off and during the zipp-off. The reference points are imperfect, because the video is infrared, compressed, and the background details are blurry. But the trend is still visible.

To take your own measurements: https://opensourcephysics.github.io/tracker-online/

Before the zipp-off, the background moves mostly horizontally, with only a moderate diagonal component. The angle seems to be around 10°, perhaps up to 15° at most.

During the zipp-off, however, the vertical component becomes much stronger. On some reference points, it reaches roughly 40° to 45°. So this vertical motion does not appear only after the zipp-off. It already begins during the zipp-off, before becoming more obvious in RATE G.

Marik points the change in the trajectory (at RATE G in the leaked video) :


Source: https://x.com/MvonRen/status/2057952774479032629?s=20


But this is where the argument turns around.

We can measure the change in the apparent trajectory caused by the increased vertical motion of the background.
In Marik's own video, at the moment when the red line becomes clearly vertical, we can see that the vertical movement cause the apparent trajectory to shift by several degrees, likely around 15° to 20° downward.

That is the amount needed to compensate for the initial diagonal motion.

So if the vertical motion increases enough at the moment of the zipp-off, it can compensate for the initial diagonal motion. And that is exactly what we observe.
That explains why the object can appear to leave almost horizontally instead of following the earlier diagonal camera sweep.

The real question for anyone who still thinks the zipp-off is not explained by camera movement is this: why should the object continue diagonally if the vertical component of the background motion increases at the exact moment of the zipp-off?

As already pointed out in this thread, the easting motion slows sharply at the moment of the zipp-off.

I made some videos to help compare the background motion frame by frame before / after the zip off. I used the frames from the 25% slowed down portion as suggested above.

Here I've compared the frames just prior to the zip off to get a baseline for how fast the background was moving. We can see significant horizontal motion right->left, with only a slight vertical top->bottom component.
View attachment 91178
View attachment 91179

Here's the first frame of the zip off. This is the one most people have had trouble with, but if you look closely the left->right motion is about half as fast as before, and the top->down motion is about twice as fast. The background motion starts to change at exactly the same time as the zip off.
View attachment 91180

Here's the second frame of the zip off. We already see a very clear, very dramatic change in the background motion. By the second frame the right->left motion of the background has disappeared entirely, leaving only a significant top->down motion.
View attachment 91181

New around here. Don't plan on being too regular. Thought I'd hang this here for others. Hope I am not rehashing old arguments.

Source: https://x.com/blessedlyunwoke/status/2060696686800826691


As Marik likes to say. "Ultraprecise" hard data. Multiple lines of evidence point to the camera causing the object to appear to accelerate.

Key insight: The vertical movement of the camera is not the key trigger we should be looking for. It's the horizontal motion that is responsible for the behavior. And the change in easting observed on the video is consistent with the parallax derived motion blur theory.

Prologue: One of Marik's arguments has been the timing of the vertical motion of the camera. I bit on that one, in part because the application of his red arrows to demonstrate the motion were late and it seemed like low hanging fruit. I still think he's wrong on the timing, I just don't think it needs to be argued any longer.

So: I realized this morning that the vertical motion is a red arrow-shaped herring. The motion blur is in the horizontal, not vertical. And since the image is nearly north-up, the easting is approximately the same as the rate of horizontal movement.
What the data shows is a rate of movement change that lines up with the object appearing to accelerate. Prior to the event, the camera was tracking east at approximately six-meters per frame. At the point that the blur happens (1204), the rate the camera is tracking over the ground suddenly drops to about one-meter per frame. So we have the rate change we need (horizontal, not vertical) at the point we need it (1204) and continuing through the edge of the frame.

Further, if you do the math for how long it would take the object to slide out of frame if it continued constant while the frame slowed significantly, you'd wind up around 1211/1212. The object has to cover the in frame equivalent of about 35-40 meters. At 5-meters per frame, that's 7-8 frames. 1204 plus 7/8 is 1211/122. Right on time.

I want to add one more thing that becomes apparent when viewing this chart that isn't apparent in Marik's graph: the track mode cycles from RPOINT to RATE to RATE G in 0.02 seconds. While he has claimed that the acceleration caused the switch, that argument doesn't stand up. The only track mode change that could be triggered by the object moving happens 0.1 seconds prior to the event. The second switch that immediately follows isn't driven by what is happening on screen.

And the vertical motion also change: it increases at the same critical moment, and it appears large enough to explain why the zipp-off trajectory becomes nearly horizontal.

The combination of horizontal and vertical camera/background motion. Together, they match the observed zipp-off trajectory very well.

At this point, I no longer see any reasonable argument for doubting that the apparent instantaneous acceleration is caused by the camera motion, I don't even see a compelling reason to pursue a full 3D geometric reconstruction, or similar analyses, to determine whether the object should have remained visible when the operator zoomed back out to NAR.

I'm fairly confident in this conclusion.