I found it interesting that some people's propensity to acknowledge the chance of human error seems to change depending on whom is proposing the human error.
The problem occurs when the observer is convinced it's a small craft at low altitude less than 1,000 feet away (nothing shows on the radar), and it's actually a high plane, at least 30,000 feet up, and 30,000 feet (6 miles) away horizontally. That shows up on the radar, but as it's nowhere near what was "observed" it's not a candidate.But as the Navy and military is so keen on having instruments that can provide corroborative information, I am a bit lost in the words of Luie. Because, he sounds like only talking about visual imagery. Is it not so, that when someone on a boat sees something, that the ship's intel will start to flag it and search for it with their radar? Am I a bit naive here perhaps? I cannot imagine that the felllow with the NV gear sees something unknown, and the rest of the ship is like "meh".
Sounds quite like a plausible scenario indeed.The problem occurs when the observer is convinced it's a small craft at low altitude less than 1,000 feet away (nothing shows on the radar), and it's actually a high plane, at least 30,000 feet up, and 30,000 feet (6 miles) away horizontally. That shows up on the radar, but as it's nowhere near what was "observed" it's not a candidate.
It's not a hypothetical, it's more or less exacly what happened with the infamous "Chilean Navy UFO" case:Sounds quite like a plausible scenario indeed.
It turned out to be a commercial flight, much higher/further away than the observers believed - https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ex...deo-aerodynamic-contrails-flight-ib6830.8306/
A Chilean government agency within the civil aeronautics directorate, the Comité de Estudios de Fenómenos Aéreos Anómalos (CEFAA), released a video taken by a Navy helicopter of a mysterious craft in 2014.
During the encounter, the pilot contacted two separate radar stations who were unable to track the object (their on-board radar also failed to pick up the object) and confirmed that there was no other air traffic in the area. Multiple attempts to contact the craft received no reply.
Newsweek: Chilean Navy Can't Identify Mysterious Aircraft Caught on Video
I asked on Twitter:Jeremy: "Inside the May 1st 2020 ONI UAPTF report"
He later says it was actually a presentation
The UAPTF was formed in August 2020 . So this sounds like it was a presentation to persuade the Navy to form the UAPTF. And I wonder what contractors, industry leaders and players were involved in producing that presentation. Hmmmmmmmm
That's what I was just wondering.bit of a tangent but did we work out an estimate for the specs of the night vision camera used? Just wondering if we we can work out how big the claimed "pyramid" would be given they are adamant about it being "700ft away"
17.2º according to previous posts in this thread, calculated from the visible stars. That's gives the diameter of the visible circle as 212 feet at that distance. https://www.google.com/search?q=2+*+700+*+tan+(17.2/2+degrees)=That's what I was just wondering.
Would have to be tiny if that's true IMO, but yeah, someone good at maths is needed here
I realised that after I posted the workings-out above. If they do mean 700ft above sea level, and it's at approximately 45º above the horizon, then it's also 700ft away laterally. That gives roughly 1000ft of total distance: 100 * √(49+49).The "700 feet" is a little ambiguous, you can take it in one of three ways:
Yeah I found that odd -- none of the other things sprouting from that top catwalk showed up in the video.The "700 feet" is a little ambiguous, you can take it in one of three ways:
1) 700 feet above sea level
2) 700 feet above the camera
3) 700 feet away from the camera (the line of sight distance).
The actual size depends on the line of sight distance. That depends on A) if it's above the sea level or above camera, AND the angle of the camera. I plugged in 45° for the latter as Okab is at about 42°, but of course varies depending on the actual time (need EXIF data).
If it's the height above the camera, we'd need to know where the camera is - but given the antenna, this upper level looks plausible
However, there are also various antenna-like things on the main deck.
It could be an airliner at 5k feet, depending on how far they are from an airport, or if it was even a jumbo jet.So it's either an airliner at 30k feet or something the size of a drone at 700 feet
I disagree. Whatever else may or may not have been seen during other moments of the "drone flap," it is pretty clear what THIS image is showing. Other sightngs of other objects, whatever they might have been, don't changce what THIS video shows.I can see the argument for a plane at a much higher altitude (and out of focus) explaining the video we have, but that doesn't hold up with the wider context contained in that report
Interesting, as Ben was initially a bit skeptical of the Bokeh idea. XD
Helene Cooper, one of the NYT journalists who co-authored the original UAP articles back in 2017, says that she have seen these videos back then:
The photons hitting the nvg set off electrons that get amplified then hit a phosphor layer if I understood correctly, so it would be possible that the objects were mundane however obscured by clouds, rain, distance but that the nvg allowed them to be visible anyway (and thus "remarkable", or at least, able to be remarked upon).Why do they need night vision to see blinking airplanes and stars? They didn't try looking without night vision?
I think they would've seen aircraft lights and stars with their eyes. I wouldn't expect NVG to see through clouds.The photons hitting the nvg set off electrons that get amplified then hit a phosphor layer if I understood correctly, so it would be possible that the objects were mundane however obscured by clouds, rain, distance but that the nvg allowed them to be visible anyway (and thus "remarkable", or at least, able to be remarked upon).