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

jarlrmai

Active Member
Well it seems at least that Elizondo might not be as convinced as some that Navy personnel don't make identification errors when submitting footage to the UAPTF.
 
Last edited:

gtoffo

Member
Sounds kind of like he's thinking the pyramid might be a plane.

That is a very reasonable take (as always) from Elizondo. Definitely sounds like he thinks this case is most probably closed.
He seems to indicate this footage was analysed by the UAPTF but probably the conclusion was airplanes.

The "confusion during a UAP incident" would make most sense. If those were the only contacts then it would be a spectacular and unrealistic fail by the Navy.
If other stuff was in the air I can see the SNOOPY on a small boat at 2 am taking pictures of any light in the sky and the weird bokeh baffling them and making them jump to extreme conclusions.

It would be a very reasonable and human reaction and totally understandable.
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
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.
 

Ravi

Member
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".
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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".
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.
 

Ravi

Member
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.
Sounds quite like a plausible scenario indeed.
 
Sounds quite like a plausible scenario indeed.
It's not a hypothetical, it's more or less exacly what happened with the infamous "Chilean Navy UFO" case:
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/
 

media42

New Member
Made my own little video just for fun - includes night footage of passenger plane with blinking lights and stars. Added a green tint and triangular bokeh (Camera Lens Blur in After Effects)... similar to the other videos added above, I think it's clear what the 'pyramid uap' video really is. I don't see it as debunking, I see it as research! (the below video goes in and out of focus, as you'd expect - but around the 26 second mark it's pretty similar to the Corbell footage)

 
Last edited:

Ravi

Member
Interestingly, the mystery wire podcast from 4/30 with Jeremy et al, is bashing MW (and us here in general) for being correct? Very nice!
 
I'm confused.
Jeremy got pics and videos from a May 1st 2020 ONI UAPTF presentation?


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


Source: https://youtu.be/xd4RZ21oFUM?t=2531

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Re...-of-unidentified-aerial-phenomena-task-force/

This is so strange
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

Jesse3959

Member
Odd. They are talking about the video showing the blinking lights, and someone asks "Do we know that that object was 700 above" and the answer is "That's what it says in the power point slide."

Am I missing something? The power point slide does not appear to be screenshots from the video. Different incident. Why are they assuming that the moving blinking object is the same stationary objects said to be hovering above the ship?

They really just want it to be true and won't apply even the slightest critical examination to their dreams...

Of course I didn't watch the entire mystery wire video so maybe I missed something :D
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
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"
 
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"
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 :)
 
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 :)
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)=

So divide the apparent size of the object by the size of the circle (measure both in pixels or hold a ruler the the screen and use inches, the units don't matter), and multiply that by 212 feet to get the hypothetical size if it was 700 feet away.
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
very rough estimate from the zoomed out clip at the start of the video is the object covers 21 pixels of 1020 pixels so around 2%

2% of 212ft is an object 4.2ft across.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I used a dimmer zoomed in image, as there's a few pixels spread apparent with bright light sources like Jupiter and even the nearby stars.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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 2021-04-30_12-02-51.jpg

However, there are also various antenna-like things on the main deck.
 
The "700 feet" is a little ambiguous, you can take it in one of three ways:
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).

So about 6ft across at that distance. A bit less if the cameraperson was up on that mast.
 
Last edited:

Jesse3959

Member
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 2021-04-30_12-02-51.jpg

However, there are also various antenna-like things on the main deck.
Yeah I found that odd -- none of the other things sprouting from that top catwalk showed up in the video.

Also, is it just me, or is the 700ft claim absolutely unrelated to the video of the blinking triangle?

From what I can tell, the video of the blinking triangle was not pointed straight up, and the object in question was flying to someplace, not hovering.

The 700ft figure comes from the power point slide which says the triangles were hovering above the fantail of the ship.

And some of the photos in the power point slide actually appear to show the guy wires which means that photo was not taken from that top catwalk.

My current belief is that the 3 photos were of bokeh stars straight overhead, and the 700 feet was estimated, and that the flying triangle was taken from a different location on the ship, and was not over the ship, and that there is no claim as to the height or distance of the flying triangle.

Is it just me, or is there literally no official source claiming that the moving blinking triangle is 700 feet?
 

Jesse3959

Member
So it's either an airliner at 30k feet or something the size of a drone at 700 feet
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.
There are also a lot of small aircraft with non-pressurized cabins that don't ever go up to where they can't breath.
But even if you watch the landing profile of jumbo jets, they start their descent quite a bit before reaching the airport.
The distance could have just been due to how far away it was rather than it's height (which is why it may have been visible below the clouds.)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So it's either an airliner at 30k feet or something the size of a drone at 700 feet
Or anything inbetween.

Realistically, I think the higher altitude plane fits better with traffic in the area. But we really need a date, time, and location.
 
In the December 2020 TheDebrief article below, Tim says he was told they had a clear pic of a triangle craft with lights at the corners as per below.

If they had a clear photo of a triangle craft , why leak a vid of triangle bokeh?
And I wonder who told Tim that

This whole thing is starting to smell badly.

"Overwhelmingly, everyone The Debrief spoke with said the most striking feature of the recently released UAPTF intelligence position report was the inclusion of a new and “extremely clear” photograph of an unidentifiable triangular aircraft.

The photograph, which is said to have also been taken from inside the cockpit of a military fighter jet, depicted an apparent aerospace vehicle described as a large equilateral triangle with rounded or “blunted” edges and large, perfectly spherical white “lights” in each corner. Officials who had seen it said the image was captured in 2019 by an F/A-18 fighter pilot.

Two officials that received the report said the photo was taken after the triangular craft emerged from the ocean and began to ascend straight upwards at a 90-degree angle. It was indicated that this event occurred off the eastern coast of the United States. Several other sources confirmed the photo’s existence; however, they declined to provide any further specifics of the incident.

Officials who read the recent report say it primarily focused on “Unidentified Submersible Phenomena,” or unidentified “transmedium” vehicles capable of operating both underwater and in the air. "


https://thedebrief.org/fast-movers-and-transmedium-vehicles-the-pentagons-uap-task-force/
 

gtoffo

Member
I don't understand how it works very well... but I think it is illegal in the US for a journalist to share material clearly marked as "Classified". So it seems journalists are receiving a lot of material but are only cherrypicking what they release based on that. SO we are left with "the scraps"
 

Related Articles

Top