"Pyramid" UFOs in Night Vision Footage are Bokeh

That video really does not make much sense.

Bokeh just means the out of focus area of the image.

If that area is contiguous colour or mottled pattern then it's just called bokeh, if there is small or point light source it takes on the shape of the aperture this is also called bokeh but often referred to as bokeh balls if the aperture is circular or near circular, if not then the balls take on the shape of the aperture.

"There's no aperture inside this night vision google thing", almost every optical system has an aperture, its the most fundamental part of a camera, the most basic camera a pinhole camera is literally just an aperture.

The aperture is just the hole through which light travels. In most camera systems this specifically refers to an iris or adjustable diaphragm in the lens along the light path which can be adjusted to reduce or increase the amount of light travelling though the optical system, this also affects the angle from which the light rays are gathered, allowing more of the depth to the be in apparent focus.

High quality photographic lenses often have 6+ blades because the quality of rounder bokeh balls is considered desirable by photographers.

In a 3 blade aperture, this is the shape of a triangle with rounded edges, one of the advantages of the 3 blade aperture is the ability to completely close the aperture.
 
Some confusion might be there because some older/cheaper NVGs don't seem to have an adjustable bladed iris built in, they still have an aperture (hole through which light travels), its just not a controllable bladed iris diaphragm. You can see a lot of videos of people adding them to these devices.

But as was found in the original investigation, some models do have a diaphragm built in and we found models with 3 blade aperture diaphragm.

This would all be 100% instead of 99.9999% cleared up if we knew the exact model used in the videos.
 
He also says the blinging is too fast to be nav warning lights
He says 400 flashes per minute or 6.6 flashes per second. That makes no sense looking at the "flasher." Which is much slower. The only think I can think of is he's looking at one of the stars, like Capella or Altair, that is bright enough to flicker. Rather unfortunate if so.
 
He says 400 flashes per minute or 6.6 flashes per second. That makes no sense looking at the "flasher." Which is much slower. The only think I can think of is he's looking at one of the stars, like Capella or Altair, that is bright enough to flicker. Rather unfortunate if so.
It's the classic mix up the debunk/explanation for one video with another tactic, we see it all the time with the ATFLIR vids.

Intentional or "just a mistake" Travis?
 
That does not really make any sense, Bokeh is caused by things being out of focus. It has to occur in the NV device, as we also see individual pixels of noise, so the recording camera is focussed correctly. The NV I've seen don't have autofocus - they focus manually, like binoculars.
That does not really make any sense, Bokeh is caused by things being out of focus. It has to occur in the NV device, as we also see individual pixels of noise, so the recording camera is focussed correctly. The NV I've seen don't have autofocus - they focus manually, like binoculars.

Seems to be very popular on UFOs reddit. People seem to believe his stance that it's not bokeh but rather a autofocus error.
You might want to address all this there or on twitter


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/w1hf3s/travis_taylor_on_pyramid_ufo_shown_during_us_uap/
 
Seems to be very popular on UFOs reddit. People seem to believe his stance that it's not bokeh but rather a autofocus error.
You might want to address all this there or on twitter


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/w1hf3s/travis_taylor_on_pyramid_ufo_shown_during_us_uap/

Mick posted directly in the reddit thread. A lot of comments / people there agree with Mick but it's the same old story, the true believers just want someone to cheerlead no matter how ludicrous it is.
 
Apologies if this has been discussed already, but I noticed in the comments of that Reddit post, someone claims to have identified the aircraft which was the source of the blinking light.


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/w1hf3s/comment/igkui3w/?context=3

The YouTube video they link to is Mick West's recreation of the triangular bokeh. The linked image is this, the flightradar24 track of N974VV:

02tnhBj.jpg


Unpacking the other Reddit post they link to, there's discussion of N974VV being the "UAP"
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/ADSB/comments/nr10mk/can_anyone_confirm_flight_history/

That is this plane: http://www.omegaairrefueling.com/

They are flying a mid-air refueling racetrack pattern which means that fighter jets were up and they had radio contact with them.

Using the positions of the identified stars and approximate position of the ship, is it possible to calculate the NVG line of sight and confirm whether it intersects the flight path of N974VV?
 
Apologies if this has been discussed already, but I noticed in the comments of that Reddit post, someone claims to have identified the aircraft which was the source of the blinking light.


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/w1hf3s/comment/igkui3w/?context=3

The YouTube video they link to is Mick West's recreation of the triangular bokeh. The linked image is this, the flightradar24 track of N974VV:

02tnhBj.jpg


Unpacking the other Reddit post they link to, there's discussion of N974VV being the "UAP"
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/ADSB/comments/nr10mk/can_anyone_confirm_flight_history/



Using the positions of the identified stars and approximate position of the ship, is it possible to calculate the NVG line of sight and confirm whether it intersects the flight path of N974VV?

My understanding is we didn't have a date and time for the Russel triangle video. It might be in there with the latest unredacted version where we found that the time for the FLIR video was approximate and identifed a possible candidate for that plane. But I'll have to go back and take a look. All though I would have though @flarkey might have found it if it were.
 
My understanding is we didn't have a date and time for the Russel triangle video.
The 170211ZJUL19 (July 17, 2019, NOT July 19) video seems to have been taken at the same time as the "flasher" video. It shows the same three stars as seen at the end (Altair in the middle), and they are in about the same orientation. Of course, it would be pretty much the same around that time for weeks.
 
My understanding is we didn't have a date and time for the Russel triangle video. It might be in there with the latest unredacted version where we found that the time for the FLIR video was approximate and identifed a possible candidate for that plane. But I'll have to go back and take a look. All though I would have though @flarkey might have found it if it were.

To be honest I didnt thouroghly check.

It shouldnt be hard to check the position of the ship and against the track for the DC-10. However he problems is that he event is now over 3 years ago and we may not be able to download the kml of the track.
 
It shouldnt be hard to check the position of the ship and against the track for the DC-10. However he problems is that he event is now over 3 years ago and we may not be able to download the kml of the track.
Yeah, both FR24 and Planefinder.net stop at three years.
 
@Mick West
Didn't Travis make a tweet at one point saying they had solved one more case and it was a star and did he say bokeh?
Do you gave that tweet, I cant find it anymore?
 
Please remember that many young people, young sailors for example, have grown up in cities full of street lights and headlights and light pollution. They have never really seen a dark night sky. They have never seen the Milky Way and a truly dark sky filled with thousands of stars. Mistaking stars for drones and UFO's is easy for them, what they are familiar with in the night sky is the moon and the navigation lights of airliners and police helicopters. I have never been at sea on a navy ship and so don't know how bright the decks are, but are the sailors eyes ever given time to become adjusted to the night? Or are there sufficient lights that their eyes are never really adjusting to the darkness? The fact they are seeing stars as drones/UFO's suggests that without the night vision device they are not seeing stars at all. Perhaps some "introduction to the night sky" classes should be taught to sailors before they go to sea?
 
@Mick West
Didn't Travis make a tweet at one point saying they had solved one more case and it was a star and did he say bokeh?
Do you gave that tweet, I cant find it anymore?
Not a Tweet, he said it during a SWR online cast discussion. He did not say bokeh, just "stars and a drone"

 
He says 400 flashes per minute or 6.6 flashes per second. That makes no sense looking at the "flasher." Which is much slower. The only think I can think of is he's looking at one of the stars, like Capella or Altair, that is bright enough to flicker. Rather unfortunate if so.

I somewhat doubt Travis credentials, and his ability to do “detailed maths and science”.

He claims the time based analysis he did provided a flashing of 400 a minute or 6.66 blinks per second ! That would be clearly strobing and is nowhere near the actual 1.5 seconds per blink we see.
 
Last edited:
I somewhat doubt Travis credentials, and his ability to do “detailed maths and science”
He claims the time based analysis he did provided a flashing of 400 a minute or 6.66 blinks per second ! That would be clearly strobing and is nowhere near the actual 1.5 seconds per blink we see.
1.5 seconds would be 40 a minute rather than 400, so perhaps it's merely the inability to count. But yes, his value is laughably wrong.
 
This case is so weird to me. The taskforce said they were UAS, this is wrong they are stars with one plane (or maybe but unlikely a UAS), but they still said UAS for them all not UAP so even the official but wrong ID is still characterized by (as held up by UFO fans) the infallible US Navy as a UAS which is a specific term used for a human unmanned aerial system. So I just don't know where the whole the Navy thinks it's a pyramid shaped NHI craft thing fits in.
 
I also did an overlay of the 1704 video (the one used for Stratton's congressional presentation slide) showing where the stars are on a partially stabilized video



Unfortunately, it's hard to see them, so I also did a contrast-enhanced version of the full video:
https://www.metabunk.org/f/170411ZJUL19 CONTRAST ENHANCED.mp4

You can clearly see the other stars, even at normal playback speed.
 
This case is so weird to me. The taskforce said they were UAS, this is wrong they are stars with one plane (or maybe but unlikely a UAS), but they still said UAS for them all not UAP so even the official but wrong ID is still characterized by (as held up by UFO fans) the infallible US Navy as a UAS which is a specific term used for a human unmanned aerial system. So I just don't know where the whole the Navy thinks it's a pyramid shaped NHI craft thing fits in.

It doesn't seem that weird considering who was involved. Jay Stratton was running the taskforce and Travis Taylor was his "chief scientist". IF Stratton is the same person referred to as Axelrod in the book Skinwalkers at the Pentagon, which is very likely, then the guy running the taskforce is a holdover from AASWAP/AATIP/Skinwalker Ranch and he hired Taylor, a regular on Ancient Aliens and the latest Skinwalker Ranch TV show. Hardly a couple of rational unbiased investigators.
 
It doesn't seem that weird considering who was involved. Jay Stratton was running the taskforce and Travis Taylor was his "chief scientist". IF Stratton is the same person referred to as Axelrod in the book Skinwalkers at the Pentagon, which is very likely, then the guy running the taskforce is a holdover from AASWAP/AATIP/Skinwalker Ranch and he hired Taylor, a regular on Ancient Aliens and the latest Skinwalker Ranch TV show. Hardly a couple of rational unbiased investigators.
I get that, but they (Stratton/Taylor) told congress they were UAS, not that they were UAP.

So where does the pyramid alien spaceship fit in? Did they actually think they were not UAS but told congress they were? Is UAS being used to mean UAP/UFO even though it has massively more common usage to mean man made drone system?
 
Is UAS being used to mean UAP/UFO even though it has massively more common usage to mean man made drone system?
A suspicious mind might wonder if there was intent to confuse there. The number of UAP cases could seem to skyrocket of folks would confuse the very similar UAS with the new preferred UFO term.
 
A suspicious mind might wonder if there was intent to confuse there. The number of UAP cases could seem to skyrocket of folks would confuse the very similar UAS with the new preferred UFO term.
I also considered they told them they were possibly advanced Chinese triangular drones (UNK UAS) to get more funding etc, whilst thinking they were alien spacecraft/grifting like mad (depending on your own personal interpretation of what is actually going on their heads.)
 
Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp are denying the triangular shape is caused by the optical system:

(51:53 - 52:11) - (George) The triangle stuff, the pyramid stuff. You take it away and explain why that is an important piece of evidence, because it is not bokeh. We know from Jay Stratton and Travis Taylor, and they looked at that, they analysed it. They had other optics experts, PhDs that looked at it. It is not, right?

(52:12 - 52:37) - (Corbell) - Yeah, so beyond that, it is not bokeh. And I know people love to think that, and here's the deal, there were other sensor systems, and there were other people that had more information on it. I know it's frustrating to hear (that it was not bokeh), but it is true. And so, I'm going to stand firm on that that it was not bokeh. Look, even a triangular shaped craft looks triangular with a boke triangular effect, but it wasn't.

(52:38 - 53:12) - (Corbell) - This is...I mean, how many times I got to say it. This is the PVS-14. This is what was used on the filming of that event. On this is a circular lens, in order to create...(I mean) a circular aperture. In order to create a bokeh that's triangular, you would need to tape this off, they don't come like that, like people are trying to show online. It's so funny man. But I'm not going to argue that point to death. It's OK, it's OK. Anything that is triangular shaped, is pyramid, and three-dimensional reality, we are reporting the news.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6b4stJk424&t=3113s


I have edited Jesse's video to highlight the results of his experiments (original is ~27 min long, 4e4PdpsrRjQ on YouTube):

 
The PVS-14 can have aftermarket iris caps fitted, I imagine there are various versions, some might be three bladed.
 
"Weaponized" was uploaded on the 13th of March, is that footage not recent?
Confusing..
I sometimes look at Corbell’s twitter feed and he had this up recently, I think he’s running out of content as I haven’t seen too much recently.
 
"Weaponized" was uploaded on the 13th of March, is that footage not recent?
Confusing..

I'm sorry, I saw the description:
External Quote:
Jeremy and George look back at some of the key moments from the past thirteen months,
And then I heard what Corbell was sayin sounded exactly like what he said two years ago, so I assumed it was a recap using old clips. I guess it's more of a rehash!

Still saying it's not bokeh is just silly, especially as Corbell and Knapp seem to be taken seriously by the UAP caucus in Congress.
 
Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp are denying the triangular shape is caused by the optical system:

(51:53 - 52:11) - (George) The triangle stuff, the pyramid stuff. You take it away and explain why that is an important piece of evidence, because it is not bokeh. We know from Jay Stratton and Travis Taylor, and they looked at that, they analysed it. They had other optics experts, PhDs that looked at it. It is not, right?

(52:12 - 52:37) - (Corbell) - Yeah, so beyond that, it is not bokeh. And I know people love to think that, and here's the deal, there were other sensor systems, and there were other people that had more information on it. I know it's frustrating to hear (that it was not bokeh), but it is true. And so, I'm going to stand firm on that that it was not bokeh. Look, even a triangular shaped craft looks triangular with a boke triangular effect, but it wasn't.

(52:38 - 53:12) - (Corbell) - This is...I mean, how many times I got to say it. This is the PVS-14. This is what was used on the filming of that event. On this is a circular lens, in order to create...(I mean) a circular aperture. In order to create a bokeh that's triangular, you would need to tape this off, they don't come like that, like people are trying to show online. It's so funny man. But I'm not going to argue that point to death. It's OK, it's OK. Anything that is triangular shaped, is pyramid, and three-dimensional reality, we are reporting the news.

Look, even a triangular shaped craft looks triangular with a boke triangular effect, but it wasn't.

Eh, what? I am not sure what Corbell is going on about..

It's OK, it's OK. Anything that is triangular shaped, is pyramid, and three-dimensional reality, we are reporting the news

...
 
Eh, what? I am not sure what Corbell is going on about..



...
if you have a real actual triangular lit craft and use a camera with a triangular aperture the triangular craft still looks triangular (with slightly rounded corners.)

The assertion is that if it were bokeh (which they still say it isn't) then the craft (the flashing plane) could still be an illuminated triangular craft.
 
Asserting it's a PVS-14 is just a red herring, A) we don't know what the night vision device was, and B) it's obviously bokeh because of the stars.
Indeed just mentioning that even if it is a PVS-14 that doesn't exclude it from having a triangular aperture.
 
I thought even the military (can't remember who specifically) confirmed they agreed it was bokeh? Am I misremembering?
 
I thought even the military (can't remember who specifically) confirmed they agreed it was bokeh? Am I misremembering?
Scott Bray, Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence, confirmed it was just bokeh during a congress hearing on "UAP" - May 17, 2022.

External Quote:
The night time video of the triangle-shaped objects flying over the USS Russell was shot in 2019 in the Pacific and was leaked by UFO researchers last year who claimed it was among the best military UFO footage ever released. It was taken with a camera through a night-vision lens by the Navy crew.

Bray said the Pentagon found a second night-vision video shot elsewhere under similar circumstances and was then able to confirm the objects were drones that only appeared triangular due to the camera aperture, a common effect called bokeh.
source: https://www.military.com/daily-news...rs-deflates-speculation-alien-spacecraft.html
 
His system is showing coma and astigmatism instead, and his footage is well focused enough that the triangular shape would not be noticeable, if he's got a triangular iris fitted. He's using the NVG30, which is a cheap night vision goggle, thus no surprises here. For instance, Canopus and Tau Pup look like a squid and a pigeon in his footage.

1713402754815.png
1713402761846.png


Which in turn look similar to the typical coma patterns:

1713403228523.png


Source: https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-di...ope-if-some-of-them-are-essentially-just-dots
 
Last edited:
His system is showing coma and astigmatism instead, and his footage is well focused enough that the triangular shape would not be noticeable, if he's got a triangular iris fitted. He's using the NVG30, which is a cheap night vision goggle, thus no surprises here. For instance, Canopus and Tau Pup look like a squid and a pigeon in his footage.

View attachment 67724View attachment 67725

Which in turn look similar to the typical coma patterns:

View attachment 67726
It's great to see such clear examples of similar phenomenon being presented, but can you please remember to include links to the sources for your images.

They bear a lot in common with the images (Figures 41 and 45) from:
https://www.telescope-optics.net/coma.htm
https://www.telescope-optics.net/astigmatism1.htm
and I have no reason to doubt them, we just like the breadcrumbs.
 
Back
Top