So that could theoretically be a slow moving drone.If it were flying at 700 ft, using Mick's calculations from the previous page, the plane would have had to fly along at a bit over 10 kts, which is of course an impossibly low speed.
Wow... some of the statements are really strange. They still double down on the "unknown objects".Adm. Michael Gilday, chief of naval operations, spoke about the July 2019 flights
Asked if the aircraft were “extraterrestrial,” Gilday said he had “no indications at all of that.”
The video might not depict what the ships actually observed and reported. A confused sailor might have filmed an airliner while an incident with unknown phenomena/drones was ongoing and it got caught up in the investigation.Adm. Michael Gilday, chief of naval operations, spoke about the July 2019 flights Monday at a Defense Writers Group event in Washington. Gilday said the incident — and other similar sightings — were still being assessed.
Asked if the Navy had identified the drones that flew near U.S. warships near the Channel Islands off Southern California, Gilday said: “No, we have not.”
I've been keeping my eye out for planes at night, but I'm not under much of a flight path.Basically the smallest perfect triangles you can get. I think the Navy footage has a medium aperture, and not so much lack of focus. In your video when you see the plane you are focussed on the stars, then you defocus a lot. I think at that point just defocussing about 1/4 of that (or less) would give smaller triangles.
I would not rule out the possibility that they thought Jupiter was a drone.Pretty clear they start of taking a look at Jupiter, brightest object in the sky and always a nice thing to look at, then moves to the plane. Seems odd to be looking at Jupiter if you are taking footage of a alien pyramid fleet surrounding your ship.
if you click the little arrow next to Mick's name in quote below it will take you to the original comment.I can't remember, but I think you had addressed this claim below?
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.
Basically the smallest perfect triangles you can get. I think the Navy footage has a medium aperture, and not so much lack of focus. In your video when you see the plane you are focussed on the stars, then you defocus a lot. I think at that point just defocussing about 1/4 of that (or less) would give smaller triangles.
I guess this is all a dead horse by now.
I honestly didn’t know each make/model had such unique lighting apparatus, other than type and placement. I would have guessed color and strobe frequency would all be standardized by appropriate regulating body. If that’s not the case then maybe it can be narrowed down.
I delved into this a bit and it's really not standardized at all. There are some FAA rules about general strobe frequencies (quoted in this thread somewhere already), and Airbus aircraft are distinctive by using a double-pulse of the main beacon, but that's about it.I honestly didn’t know each make/model had such unique lighting apparatus, other than type and placement. I would have guessed color and strobe frequency would all be standardized by appropriate regulating body. If that’s not the case then maybe it can be narrowed down.
It certainly doesn’t help our plight that we can’t discern the light’s placement due to the unfocused nature of the footage.
I agree, but the fact that it could be one of many aircraft types will just be twisted by those who want to mystify the video to mean that "the strobe pattern hasn't been matched to any known aircraft".Ultimately though I guess it doesn't matter: The fact is every aspect of it's blinking pattern is 100% compliant with and explained by FAA lighting requirements for hundreds of thousands of aircraft.
We've already had the kettle logic of simultaneous claims that "the flashing doesn't match any known aircraft" and "the flashing is a reflection of lights from a helicopter on the deck", per Corbell.I agree, but the fact that it could be one of many aircraft types will just be twisted by those who want to mystify the video to mean that "the strobe pattern hasn't been matched to any known aircraft".
But then, I suppose even if the pattern was matched they probably wouldn't accept it anyway.
LED lights see to differ from xenon lights in that the xenon lights are an instantaneous flash, whereas the LED light are a longer pulse.Then they went to Xenon strobe lights. Now they may be LEDs.
most LED anti collision lights (see any LED anti collision you can lay your eyes on), flash at 200-300ms
Even just the date would be useful. July 15, 2019 had a stream of planes flying overhead at around 9PM (PDT), but July 14 less so. But it's not even clear if it's one of those dates.If the date/time ever comes out we'll likely be able to say what aircraft it is, so I'd imagine we never find out that detail. I doubt an FOI request would give it.
What double flash does the airbus have?I think Airbus is ruled out as the double flash of the main strobe is pretty distinctive,
Example here at 4m55:What double flash does the airbus have?
Thanks!Example here at 4m55:
(Note how the rolling shutter cuts out half the flash sometimes - depending on shutter speed there's potential for some flashes to fall between frames, in other videos.)
I've seen references to the double flash being an "Airbus thing" in various places – a Google search for "airbus double flash" will turn up several. Here's one example: https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/362746-airbus-strobes.html
The reply suggests further potential complications in identifying the 'pyramid':
Sweet, my blur is famous, at least for 15 seconds. heh heh.THe plane flashing lights and @Jesse3959's triangular aperture made an appearance on NBC News
A very condensed mention:
I am not sure I follow the argument here -- if I am close to understanding it, he's upset that the flagpole/mast is not perfectly still in relation to the background stars, and so is not perfectly still in the stabilized version. But zoomed out like that, and possibly even with the witness moving intentionally a bit to move the flagpole further from his line of sight, it would seem to me to be expected that the pole would move against the background stars in an image stabilized to keep the stars steady. Stabilizing the image to keep the pole steady would make the plane and the stars jump all over the place -- what would be the point in that? Or am I totally missing his point? Edited within seconds to remove a dumb typo.
Sounds kind of like he's thinking the pyramid might be a plane.
|Thread starter||Related Articles||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Debunked: Pyramid on Mars [Small Rock]||UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal||16|
|"Pyramid Power Plant" Debunked||UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal||14|
|A pyramid on the Moon||UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal||12|
|Debunked: Mysterious/Alien Pyramid inside Area 51/NTS/NNSS||Conspiracy Theories||20|
|Debunked: The Great pyramid of Giza and the Speed of Light||UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal||21|
|Resource for identifying the area of the night sky shown in a photo||Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky?||0|
|Explained: Mysterious lights over Milwaukee [Seagulls, Night Exposure Trails]||Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky?||27|
|C||Interesting observation of moon light phenomena i can't find the answer to ????||General Discussion||4|
|Small Green Anomaly with Blue Trail (Night Sky Photography) [Lens Flare/Reflection]||Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky?||22|
|Moonlit Contrails at Night||Contrails and Chemtrails||5|
|Red sky at night, sailors delight.||Contrails and Chemtrails||10|
|On Natural Vision Improvement - Bates Method, and a few others (thoughts?)||Health and Quackery||22|