"Pyramid" UFO's in Night Vision Footage - Maybe Bokeh?

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r2oaQWmqkk


Article:
BRIEFING / EVENT SERIES #1

An event series described involves the USS Russell.

This UAP event series took place during July of 2019 - involving Strike Group 9 within the Warning areas off of San Diego.

The USS Russell observed and recorded multiple “pyramid” shaped craft (see below image and video).




I suspect these are camera artifacts of mundane objects - specifically stars and a plane (the "flasher"). In the video there are two "pyramid" shapes on the left. The flasher moves towards them in exactly the same way planes move across the sky.

At one point there's a flash that shows a very distinctive triangle shape in the middle.

2021-04-08_12-28-14.jpg

Other night vision images show a highlight in the middle, but not triangle-shaped.
2021-04-08_12-29-04.jpg

Could a triangular aperture be responsible? It's not really a common aperture shape, and I can't find it on any other night-vision footage so far.
EyehPRLU8AMU2_a.png

However, the fact that other static lights seem to have the same shape is a big indicator it's just a camera artifact.

It does not seem like any kind of official recording, but rather someone holding a phone camera to the eyepiece of a night-vision camera.
 

Attachments

  • NAVY+FILMED+PYRAMID+UAPs.jpg
    NAVY+FILMED+PYRAMID+UAPs.jpg
    142.2 KB · Views: 1,602
  • Pyramid clip.mp4
    3.7 MB · Views: 664,904
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
2021-04-08_15-27-26.jpg

I timed the brightest flashes (red marks in the timeline above), and they match the anti-collision red flashes of a plane, every 1.5 seconds.

Here's a long exposure of a plane taking off that shows the two different timings
2021-04-12_15-03-29.jpg
(Source)

Corbell attempts to explain this by saying it's a reflection from the lights of a helicopter.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I was wondering if Night Vision Goggles (NVG) or monoculars would have an aperture - and it seems like many do not. However there are aperture adjusters sold specifically for improving focus. Sometimes it's just a cap with a hole in it that flips over the lens.

2021-04-08_23-40-13.jpg

Sometimes these are even improvised.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog...ur-nvgs-refocus-accessories-for-night-vision/ 3A8AB64D-08D1-4C9B-9043-2ABFF4E43FC4.jpg


But I can't find anything triangular.
 
Last edited:

Max Phalange

Active Member
There's a zoom in the video, a couple of seconds before the flashing triangle passes one of the dimmer triangles. Is there a way to tell if that's a digital zoom on the device that's filming, or an optical zoom of the night vision scope?

The moving/flashing triangle seems a lot closer to the upper triangle when it passes than it was when zoomed out, I'm wondering if that's just the bokehs expanding, implying an optical zoom.

image.png (3).png
 

gtoffo

Active Member
I was wondering if Night Vision Goggles (NVG) or monoculars would have an aperture - and it seems like many do not. However there are aperture adjusters sold specifically for improving focus.
I think those are meant to improve stealthiness at night rather than to improve the optics of the visor.

Basically at night you don't want an enemy or prey to see the green light of the goggles in the dark and be alerted to your presence. Every little source of light counts and the bright green could easily give away your position.

Source: personal experience playing airsoft. You see the green at night ;-)
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
There seems to be some assumption that this was filmed on a cell phone. Could it have been filmed on a DSLR with a night vision attachment? Such as one of these....

https://newatlas.com/astroscope-night-vision-dslr/12503/

In an interview Corbell indicated a 'recording device', presumably a cell phone, was held up to the eyepiece of the monocle.
Article:
Right now, I'm going to show you two slides. So they're composite images from video of two separate encounters. why they're important is because one is they were described in the briefings, in the intelligence briefings, as, very importantly, pyramid shaped UAPs. Although it appears as a triangle or triangles, that's because a face or facade of the vehicle is a projected at the individual actually shooting through night vision, through this, third generation night vision, using you know, a recording device. But this comes right from encounters on the USS Russell in July of 2019.


2021-04-08_16-37-43.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rocky

Member
2021-04-08_15-27-26.jpg

I timed the brightest flashes (red marks in the timeline above), and they match the anti-collision red flashes of a plane, every 1.5 seconds.

Corbell attempts to explain this by saying it's a reflection from the lights of a helicopter.
Mick was there a video of this incident with Corbell explaining this? I see a missing video on your post. The video of the night vision triangle is there though. These are planes. Not alien spaceships with blinking lights. Lol. They have so much technology but need those flashing lights just in case they collide right? :D The deception from the UFO community is getting tiring. Oh and as I remember that night vision tech is alien tech along with lasers and fiber optics? So I guess we are using alien tech to film aliens??? Someone please enlighten me.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick was there a video of this incident with Corbell explaining this?
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkOroSFbRz0


Corbell at 23:17
 
Last edited:

charleslamour

New Member
Finally someone understands the video is simply out if focus optical aberration and highly doubt this is from Navy source and if it is , it's not official and the NV gear used was of low quality likely someone's personal gear. The end user was digiscoping with an older Gen 2or 3 scope as they don't have any recording capabilities. Clearly what occurred, he was using a camcorder connected at least 2 inches from the output window of the NV device as you can clearly see it in the video , and when he focused on the pole then zoomed in obviously caused the flashing object ,plane to be recorded out of focus , he didn't have the focus at infinity , amateur mistake ..the triangle shape is an optical aberration likely from mismatch of lens , a flatenning reducer would have helped ,this occurs often with older systems using 2 different optical equipment ...easy mystery to resolve ..it is so disappointing so many people don't want to believe this factual explanation ,they believe in Jeremy and stupid explanation this is a triangular or worse Pyramid ship, UAP research should be for experienced investigators ,critical thinkers, researchers and scientists...he can attach his name to these videos all he wants ,!!! George Knapp eats this stuff up for breakfast getting ready for June feast but if this is what we are going to expect released from Pentagon or military sources., We are only going to feed the news media and Hollywood with money to pay and watch their fiction ,which is not so bad as I love sci Fi but sci Fi is not evidence and there needs to be clear distinction from the creative bodies science fiction or based on fact or evidence. For now I will just continue doing what I do best is get my own evidence !!
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Active Member
So, according to Corbell we see a number of objects? So, ok. But, why do those triangles all point to the same direction? I cannot imagine aliens being that strict. :)

I am convinced it is the bokeh of a defocussed light. Triangle being the aperture. I do know we have not found an example yet.


EDIT: I am agreeing with charleslamour's above!
 

charleslamour

New Member
This is example of telescope aberration of stars ,cone shaped .Yes it's not a NV device but this is from telescope needed to be collimated ..No different what type of aberrarion seen with NV video , just different reason but outcome is the same (second photo)


Screenshot_20210408-143815_Samsung Internet.jpg
Finally last example.from 12 inch teelcope uncollimated ,look familiar ??
 

Attachments

  • post-257939-0-31728200-1526641626.png
    post-257939-0-31728200-1526641626.png
    417.8 KB · Views: 362

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member


This is showing the effect of focus on Bokeh, starting out focusing at a far distance, then pulling back until the light is in focus. Then focus close to the camera (notice it flips)

50mm f/1.4, ISO 200, 1/60s exposure video.

2021-04-09_11-03-23.jpg
 

Attachments

  • MVI_8260-green-clip - 01.mp4
    946.1 KB · Views: 46,564

FatPhil

Active Member
You know deep down you want to do one shaped like a grey ;-)

Back in the olden days when I played around with such things, I was advised that it was easier to get the custom bokeh effect by putting the mask inside the camera at the back of the lens, rather than in front. However, both experiments I did were abject failures, so tests were inconclusive.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member


Here I'm demonstrating that changing the brightness of a light source does not change the size or shape of the bokeh (other than some minor glare spread)
 

Attachments

  • Bokeh source brightness clip - green - 01.mp4
    1.4 MB · Views: 21,129

Acronym

New Member


This is showing the effect of focus on Bokeh, starting out focusing at a far distance, then pulling back until the light is in focus. Then focus close to the camera (notice it flips)

50mm f/1.4, ISO 200, 1/60s exposure video.

2021-04-09_11-03-23.jpg
I think this makes sense, but there are a few things that have to be true if it is bokeh, and which raise further questions (not sure if they're all answerable given the limited data available, but I'd like to discuss).

1) Given that the orientation of the triangles doesn't invert or come into focus, the focus was either too far or too short for the entire video

2) There is a triangular aperture involved somewhere in the two optic system (NVG + Camera).

3) If the two triangles to the left are stars, we can presume that the camera was focused "too short"; but I'm frankly not sure what is the correct focus/aperture settings for stars at night... maybe I'm wrong.

This raises the following relevant questions, to me:

A) The points of light we see at the start of the video may also be stars. While it's not clear that they are exhibiting a triangular shape, they are not yet zoomed in and the "pyramid" also doesn't display an obvious shape until substantial zoom.

If you captured stars and a pulsing light at the same settings, how might they differ? The two stationary triangles to the left certainly appear to be almost the exact same size as the lit-up triangle.

B) We've focused primarily on cameras. But if the NVG had an aperture adjustment as has been posted before, AND the camera had an aperture, would this affect the shape of the potential bokeh (if at all)?

C) Did the zoom-in come from the NVG system, or the camera behind it? I'm no expert, so I'm open to ideas. But it seems to me they zoomed in the camera on the NVG image. There is a noticeable increase in visible noise, and the field of view which begins with the whole monocle (you can see the circular opening) zooms to the picture alone. So actually, the video WE'RE seeing is a zoomed in picture of an optical screen displaying night vision.

It's a strange choice, considering you would imagine a military NV system has zoom of its own.

Seems to me that the possible bokeh could be due entirely to the camera being zoomed into a tiny screen inches in front of itself, not properly focused. The appearance of the NV to the naked eye could have been different (in fact we might be seeing it at the start of the video).

There's some kind of moving object (at least one) with a pulsing light. The main assertion we're making here is that it's not necessarily shaped like a triangle/pyramid; which is of course, the headline grabber.

EDIT- while writing this, seems Mick addressed the idea above that the dimmer star bokeh should likely remain the same size (just dimmer); adds credence to the idea that the left triangles are stars displaying the same visual effect in a dimmer fashion.

EDIT 2- changed a duplicate question "B" to B and C
 
Last edited:

Rocky

Member
Why is it always the same UFO suspects? They really refuse to see anything other than alien spaceships. These are planes!!!!! Are they that easily fooled or just the most gullible people in the world or purposely deceiving their flying saucer er uhm flying pyramid community? And someone get George Knapp an office instead of sticking him in a copy room please. :D
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If you captured stars and a pulsing light at the same settings, how might they differ? The two stationary triangles to the left certainly appear to be almost the exact same size as the lit-up triangle.
They would not really, except in intensity.

B) We've focused primarily on cameras. But if the NVG had an aperture adjustment as has been posted before, AND the camera had an aperture, would this affect the shape of the potential bokeh (if at all)?
Not at all, you are just not going to get bokeh (that is noticeable) in a video of a small video screen.

C) Did the zoom-in come from the NVG system, or the camera behind it?
The camera behind it, as you can see from the start.
 

Ravi

Active Member
Nice results Mike! I am fully supporting the bokeh explanation.

What I just don't understand is that why does the navy show us these bad examples of "we don't know what we are seeing"? I cannot understand it, unless it is for a reason.
 

charleslamour

New Member
Great job Mick..everytbing is bang on..even though bokeh cannot be 100 percent identified ,we can easily see by digiscope method with iPhone or small camcorder was at least 2 inches off from the output window of the NV monocular , this has been proven easily with your video and this is what I have been disseminating to countless people on social media with little success even from some smart people I know ..I have over a decade working with NV, telescopes etc . I indentidied like you, he was focused on the pole when he zooms in ,his mistake he was not at infinity focus an amateur mistake , so it's inevitable the flashing object will be out of focus . instead of bokeh being the term used , it's simply aberration from digiscope method not using any field flattener so any one of the explanations described could be the cause until more information can be produced about the NV camera used ,..so it's important people need to know this is not a Triangular shaped craft , you visually prooved it in your video with the 2 stars with exact shape and no they are not more ships, what is this Apophis from an episode of Stargate SGC returning with his ships to destroy Earth!!! Cone on people ,the edges of the triangles illusion Bokeh or abberation are RAZOR sharp validates aberrstion , just look at all the variety of bokeh shapes with sharp.angles. ..It's the responsibility of the Navy and Corbell to officially clear up this mess as it's misinforming many in the community because let's admit it, not very many people know anything about optics with NV monoculars and it's an opportunity to educate and not take advantage for the purpose of an agenda that does not have the interest of the general.public , now let's get clear this up !!
 

charleslamour

New Member
Nice results Mike! I am fully supporting the bokeh explanation.

What I just don't understand is that why does the navy show us these bad examples of "we don't know what we are seeing"? I cannot understand it, unless it is for a reason.
Let's ask Corbell , did the Navy clear the video of the out focus night vision video..we don't know if Jeremy has more material as they seem to be releasing one or two in every few days or weeks but Jeremy seems to know 24 hours in advance , so I think it's standard BS we have been seeing for decades manipulating , sensasionalizing .. ...
 

Acronym

New Member
It seems clear that the Navy is releasing/acknowledging literal table scraps of evidence. We can speculate about the motive, but I don't think we'll get anywhere.

They must have literal gigabytes of data on this object - radar tracks, many many pictures and videos, etc. But it's clear that what could be seen on Night Vision probably was not a triangle, but for some reason servicemen have been taking videos of "UAP" with... their iPhones?

This is twice in a week we've seen acknowledged, released commercial-grade camera photos taken from platforms that have world-class detection and tracking capabilities.

There's almost no reason I can think of that personnel would even have their phones with them (in the cockpit, or on some kind of deployment from the vessel in this case) unless they've been instructed to do so in order to take photos/videos from non-Navy equipment for the express purpose of possible public release?

Going back to the video at hand - I think what we can say is if it's bokeh, one of the camera or the NVG needs to have a triangle aperture. Since the triangle shape is not readily apparent prior to the zoom but becomes extremely sharp post-zoom, I think it would be the NVG.

But, rewatching it now - there are frames of the video, during the light pulses, where it appears to light up the surrounding pixels (not simply glow brighter as a sharp triangle). Or also frames where it appears to "lose" the triangle shape - as below at 14s.

1618041691781.png

1618041752699.png

Contrast that with shortly after, where I have paused during one of the "pulses"

1618042200838.png

I'm not sure I'm satisfied with an aperture-centric effect; bokeh should, to my understanding, should all be identical and constant in shape and size and only vary in intensity between light sources or with a change in the aperture.

If there are multiple light sources on the plane (highly likely), I would expect we'd see repeating triangles, very slightly offset to each other but otherwise identical except for intensity. That could explain the illusory "3d pyramid" appearance as well, if we have blinking triangles slightly offset in rapid succession.

1618063819995.png

I've found a potential example of such and effect above. But it's hard to say the second, more faint triangle is an exact match for the brighter one - the top peak seems "off" to me. And I find the bokeh hard to reconcile with the visible bloom during the more intense blinks. Is a bloom consistent with a bokeh?

Could it be a limitation of the NVG system?

EDIT - added photos for illustration.
 
Last edited:

JMartJr

Senior Member
Nice results Mike! I am fully supporting the bokeh explanation.

What I just don't understand is that why does the navy show us these bad examples of "we don't know what we are seeing"? I cannot understand it, unless it is for a reason.
I can think of two possible reasons: Misleading potential adversaries about capabilities, or complying with the expressed desire of some members of Congress (which controls the Navy's budget) to see more UFOs. Either would be a motive for labeling ATFLIR vids of planes, bokeh of distant lights or pictures of batman balloons as "unidentified" and getting them out where people can see them.
 

Ravi

Active Member
I can think of two possible reasons: Misleading potential adversaries about capabilities, or complying with the expressed desire of some members of Congress (which controls the Navy's budget) to see more UFOs. Either would be a motive for labeling ATFLIR vids of planes, bokeh of distant lights or pictures of batman balloons as "unidentified" and getting them out where people can see them.

Interestingly, the fact that most of the "UAP hype" seems to happen in the USA, perfectly to fits your/the narrative..
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
This may be a dumb question. When the "recording device" is moving towards the eyepiece of the monocle it clearly shows an unobstructed round image. If tape were placed over the lens to create a smaller triangular aperture wouldn't the overall image displayed in the eyepiece also be in the triangular shape?
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
This may be a dumb question. When the "recording device" is moving towards the eyepiece of the monocle it clearly shows an unobstructed round image. If tape were placed over the lens to create a smaller triangular aperture wouldn't the overall image displayed in the eyepiece also be in the triangular shape?
No, because the tape wouldn’t be in focus. That’s why it is impacting the shapes of out of focus objects but not in focus objects.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This may be a dumb question. When the "recording device" is moving towards the eyepiece of the monocle it clearly shows an unobstructed round image. If tape were placed over the lens to create a smaller triangular aperture wouldn't the overall image displayed in the eyepiece also be in the triangular shape?
No, here's a video of me putting on and taking off the triangle cap.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
I wondered what airplanes would look like in night vision without bokeh. Browsing on YouTube I didn't find many suitable examples, but this one may be relevant. It shows a plane passing overhead, apparently at quite low altitude, through a Yukon Night Vision scope. (I couldn't find any technical description of this, and I am assuming it works by intensifying visible light (either primary light sources or reflected light) and not infra-red.) The image seems reasonably in focus, without obvious bokeh; not that I claim any expertise in recognising this. As the plane passes over, the plane's own lights show up as extremely bright, with some glare around them, but the body of the plane is not very much brighter than the background night sky, except on those parts of the body which are most illuminated by the lights. Large parts of the wings are completely dark. If the lights were not on, I suspect the plane would be barely visible. This contrasts with the 'pyramid' video, where the entire body of the triangle remains bright even when the lights are not flashing. This suggests that if the 'triangle' is the real shape of the object, and not bokeh or some other optical effect, the entire body of the triangle must either be a light source, or have a strongly reflective, but matt, surface, such as white paint. (I think it needs to be matt to give an even brightness.)

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NUv2PHILxI


For comparison with the 'pyramid' it would be nice to get an example with a plane at higher altitude, but I couldn't find any.
 

Ravi

Active Member
If the lights were not on, I suspect the plane would be barely visible. This contrasts with the 'pyramid' video, where the entire body of the triangle remains bright even when the lights are not flashing. This suggests that if the 'triangle' is the real shape of the object, and not bokeh or some other optical effect, the entire body of the triangle must either be a light source, or have a strongly reflective, but matt, surface, such as white paint. (I think it needs to be matt to give an even brightness.)
It doesn't matter how the plane looks like or how it behaves. What matters is that the lights are defocussed (just a tiny bit!) and this creates the blurry triangle (bokeh) caused by the aperture. So, the plane (or even UFO for that matter) in Luis video, is NOT resolved and therefore you cannot say anything about the shape of the craft.

Also, if we see these same triangles everywhere in the video, in the same direction, either these aliens like to align their crafts neatly, or it is... bokeh of stars....
 

gtoffo

Active Member
Am I the only one that doesn't see the bokeh in the first lights visible in the video? Shouldn't they be triangular also?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Am I the only one that doesn't see the bokeh in the first lights visible in the video? Shouldn't they be triangular also?
It is not zoomed in. You only sees the triangles in this video when zoomed in. Compare shapes only at specific zoom levels.

Zooming in does not make the triangles, it just lets you see them at the terrible resolution and quality we have.
 

Ravi

Active Member
Am I the only one that doesn't see the bokeh in the first lights visible in the video? Shouldn't they be triangular also?

Agreed, this happens before he squeezes the iphone to the telescope. Telescopes have an eye piece, and therefore the distance of your eye (and phone) wrt the eyepiece strongly determines how objects are in focus or not.
 

Related Articles

Top