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

MclachlanM

Active Member
I think they would've seen aircraft lights and stars with their eyes. I wouldn't expect NVG to see through clouds.

NVG do have limitations. SRT’s Gadbois explained that pilots need to learn how to avoid flying into IMC while wearing goggles. “If you haven’t been trained properly on what to look for,” he said, “you can get into weather you probably wouldn’t have got into [without NVG].” The problem is that with NVG, it is possible to see through some forms of clouds, so the pilot might not notice that conditions have deteriorated. “If you see wisps, you’re probably in the clouds,” he said. “If you’re new to goggles, you don’t catch that right away.”
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2013-03-04/nvg-essential-tool-helo-pilots
 

MetaMe

New Member
Why do they need night vision to see blinking airplanes and stars? They didn't try looking without night vision?
Do we have comments from whoever took this video?
I would imagine the person who took the video didn't think anything of it, and it's probably been picked up by someone else who wasn't there sifting through random recorded videos.

Corbell is the one who released it with the alien connotation.
 

metabuster

New Member
I think they would've seen aircraft lights and stars with their eyes. I wouldn't expect NVG to see through clouds.
It isn't about seeing through clouds though. The night is dark because there are few photons reaching our eyes after being emitted/reflected by our surroundings. Clouds will diffuse photons which cause fewer to reach the sensor, but working with fewer photons (amplifying that signal) is exactly what nvg do.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
I'm going to go with "Hey, we're getting those weird radar returns like we got when we saw those drones yesterday, somebody go outside and look. Take the night vision stuff. And look at everything just to be sure, even if it is just a star or a plane or something."
 

AmberRobot

Active Member
I'm going to go with "Hey, we're getting those weird radar returns like we got when we saw those drones yesterday, somebody go outside and look. Take the night vision stuff. And look at everything just to be sure, even if it is just a star or a plane or something."
“And don’t bother focusing or anything…”
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
We don't know if there was footage taken in focus -- but is there was there would be little point in leaking video of an airplane nicely in focus to the UFO enthusiasts.
 

Jesse3959

Member
@Agent K @metabuster

So yes, the light hits the photo-emissive screen which then emits electrons - the more light the more electrons.

In the gen1 NVD, those electrons were accelerated towards a phosphor target where they then produced light.

However in Gen2 and Gen3, the electrons actually first travel down inside tiny quartz tubes called micro channels (again in a high voltage electric field) and as they accelerate they strike the wall of the quartz tube which allows one electron to then produce a bunch more free electrons, all of which accelerate and strike the wall of the quartz tube and again each produce a bunch more -- so there's this exponential gain in electrons just like a photo-multiplier tube. These are then accelerated towards a phosphor screen and converted to a visible image.

So does NVD allow us to see things we could not see with the naked eye? YES.

And this happens in two ways - first, they are sensitive to infrared. So an infrared light -- or the infrared portion of a light which travels more freely through a haze -- can be seen through NVD when not with the visible eye.

Secondly, they multiple the light thousands of times I suppose - which in and of itself allows you to see things which are just too dim to see with the naked eye.

As to personal anecdotes, I've seen cases where an airplane flying a long ways away may be hardly noticable with the naked eye, but is highly visible with NVD.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The longer version has more stars. In particular it has the star Altir, as a VERY distinctive triangle. 2022-05-17_21-46-13.jpg2022-05-17_21-43-41.jpg
Which shows the original starfield traverse I did was correct
 

RTM

Member
So how did this go from some run of the mill recording to great evidence of a flying pyramid? Misidentified initially and leaked, leaked as a joke, released knowing that it wasn't good evidence etc. Does this not show at best there is horrible quality control and at worse dishonesty?
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
So how did this go from some run of the mill recording to great evidence of a flying pyramid? Misidentified initially and leaked, leaked as a joke, released knowing that it wasn't good evidence etc. Does this not show at best there is horrible quality control and at worse dishonesty?
I think it shows that, in an effort to appease the True Believers in UFOs, they're not going to weed out such poor cases for fear that the TBs will cry "Coverup!" These people exist, and since there is no level of debunking that is sound enough for them to admit deceit or mistake, I fear that this whole thing is a wasted effort.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
I think it shows that, in an effort to appease the True Believers in UFOs,
With the added problem that some True Believers are in congress, whence cometh the funding for the UFO investigating effort, and for the Pentagon in general.

Angering the folks with control of your money is never going to be the goal.

(If there was a vocal "stop wasting time and money on this" caucus in congress with more members than the UFO crowd has,it would be interesting to see how testimony about this stuff might change...)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
3007 shows what looks like one bright star (as yet unidentified), some faint stars, and some lights on the ship (multiple lights give overlapping triangles)
Audio say "Course of 034 True, 4000 yards. Flashing red, green, and white solid light. 2022-06-16_13-32-02.jpg
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
What's going on with the Navy? They saw triangle lights once didn't know what they were, then years later saw a triangle light that was a drone now they seem to think all triangles are drones?

They just look inept here..
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
What's going on with the Navy? They saw triangle lights once didn't know what they were, then years later saw a triangle light that was a drone now they seem to think all triangles are drones?

They just look inept here..
I also don't understand what the purpose of those videos is.. They look like the complete opposite of the extraordinary behaviour of ufos, as we are always made to believe. And then also showing the out of focus ones (bokeh)? Do they want us to believe they are a bunch of incompetent amateurs, or what?
 

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
Is it just me, or does the audio on those videos just feel wrong. Like they were added. I know that's un scientific, I'm just getting that feeling.
And the guy says he is the Snoopie Leader , and yet he doesn't focus the camera and videos bokeh, huh !
Someone who is the leader of the group trained to take pics/videos .
That doesn't seem right
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Do they want us to believe they are a bunch of incompetent amateurs, or what?
Interesting thought. I guess there is value in potential adversaries thinking you are bad at detecting and identifying stuff you are actually good at -- but there would also seem to be downsides to appearing inept (both to your adversaries and to your funders among the politicians and taxpayers.) If Congress wants to hold hearings on the Navy UAPs, hearings looking into why the Navy is leaking like a sieve, why they seem incompetent in identifying these particular cases and the like might be a good set of topics.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
I gotta assume they just have bad equipment here, they are basically trying to hand "digi-scope" a night vision monocular with (apparently a DSLR) a camera.

Digi-scoping is a common thing in amateur bird photography where a normal cheaper point and shoot camera (often now a phone camera) is focussed on the eyepiece of a spotting telescope, this is used for record shots and also by people who don't want to buy a ILC and expensive telephoto lens.

People used to do this handheld but now there are cheap adapters for it that hold the camera in place at the correct distance.

1655469422853.png

It produces images like this

1655469498924.png

So they are trying to handhold together 2 different devices that both need manual focussing, at night, on a ship and trying to spot small objects with no reference points, training could help, but the whole endeavour is hugely prone to failure.

A bigger question is on a ship with military grade gimballed FLIR systems why are they doing this?

Is it a problem with the "drone swarm" nature overwhelming the main sensors requiring the SNOOPIE teams to adapt what they have to keep a track on all the things.

If so they need a cheaper setup, recording night vision devices or more cheaper gimballed FLIR cameras. Possibly this whole thing is an endeavour to show the higher ups that swarms are a huge problem and they need to improve the availability of night vision/IR recording devices.. But that seems self-evident..
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
@jarlrmai

Indeed if the person was just holding the phone above the eye piece, surely not an easy one to focus properly. Pretty certain this cannot be the "state of the art" military approach? Unless..
 

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
@jarlrmai

Indeed if the person was just holding the phone above the eye piece, surely not an easy one to focus properly. Pretty certain this cannot be the "state of the art" military approach? Unless..

Wouldn't they see on the camera vierw screen that they were filming bokeh though ie out of focus?
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Wouldn't they see on the camera vierw screen that they were filming bokeh though ie out of focus?
The screens are small so maybe not, but given they (everyone in the chain from snoopie team to whomever analysed it later) didn't recognise it as bokeh "balls" (triangles) afterwards sat down at a computer reviewing the footage, why would they recognise it at the time?
 

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
The screens are small so maybe not, but given they (everyone in the chain from snoopie team to whomever analysed it later) didn't recognise it as bokeh "balls" (triangles) afterwards sat down at a computer reviewing the footage, why would they recognise it at the time?

You mean he didn't notice the videoed objects didn't match what he saw with his eyes ?
I know it's night vision images vs lights seen visually, but still. If the lights are showing up as trianguler in the videod night vision, should be a red flag if they dont appear triangular with your eyes
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Senior Member.
You mean he didn't notice the videoed objects didn't match what he saw with his eyes ?
I know it's night vision images vs lights seen visually, but still. If the lights are showing up as trianguler in the videod night vision, should be a red flag if they dont appear triangular with your eyes
Perhaps noticed by the person filming, but perhaps this context was lost in the later data-handling. Maybe not reported.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Yeah.
If this is from the famous "snoopy team", I am beginning to wonder how much training they get.
Maybe not a lot. Our own Landru commented on SNOOPYs, at least how they were in the '90s, in the original USS Kidd thread (bold by me):

This is a case of the acronym being created to fit a common usage. Back in the early 90s I was an enlisted Intelligence Specialist 2nd class aboard a carrier and would go up to the O10 level when they deployed the snoopy team (made up of a fellow IS and a photo mate). The notion of them being highly trained is funny. Passing a ship/aircraft identification test (which was part of IS-A school) and taking a picture is not highly trained.
Content from External Source
www.metabunk.org/threads/uss-kidd-and-other-ships-drones-encounter-2019.11681/
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Okay so we have

A probable plane as a triangle they say is a drone
Triangle stars they say are drones
Something in IR they say is a drone, but looks an awful lot like a plane as well
And also a light on the Bass Strait that is listed as a drone?

So

Navy drone flap?
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Interesting thought. I guess there is value in potential adversaries thinking you are bad at detecting and identifying stuff you are actually good at -- but there would also seem to be downsides to appearing inept (both to your adversaries and to your funders among the politicians and taxpayers.) If Congress wants to hold hearings on the Navy UAPs, hearings looking into why the Navy is leaking like a sieve, why they seem incompetent in identifying these particular cases and the like might be a good set of topics.

Did the AOIMSG (Pentagon's Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group -- gotta love these novel acronyms for the same charade that's been kept going to pander to public demands) or Bray specifically and officially claim all the bokeh in the footage are drones? Or was it more of a passing reference to the fact that the bokeh footage was filmed during a drone encounter?

The charge of Navy ineptitude is starting to feel well-founded. However, if mistaking all the bokeh for drones is only the SNOOPIE sailors' initial impression while the AOIMSG withholds from pronouncing any official conclusion due to confidentiality considerations, then the ineptitude isn't half as alarming. Perhaps there's no need for the AOIMSG to embarrass the SNOOPIE teams making glaring initial misidentifications (I know, a gracious thought which may over-estimate the professionalism and virtue of the AOIMSG).

What seems clear though is that from the perspective of DoD core functions, the AOIMSG, just as its predecessors UAPTF and AATIP, remains largely a fringe exercise in compliance with congressional assignment and prompted by the merging of several political agendas within the Congress. These agendas include a genuine interest in alien technology (e.g. Reid/Bigelow/Elizondo lobby), concern for rival nation military capabilities (e.g. Rubio), as well as winning over an alien-believing demographic of voters in the name of public interest (congressmen across the aisle).

The DoD is unlikely to express objections if such a fringe entity secures funding from outside its core budget, concerns itself with unclassified or leaked data, and strengthens Pentagon's public relations with the Congress and the general public. However, there's good grounds to believe the DoD core organization does not rely on the AOIMSG when carrying out its routine or special operations ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) tasks and that it remains hesitant to share classified information with such a highly public entity created under public pressure.

The latter would also account for why the AOIMSG/UAPTF reports consistently read like book reports by 3rd graders who didn't really read the book (something I won't confirm nor deny doing as a kid many times over). They're constantly themselves in the dark when it comes to the nitty gritty of what's actually being sighted, encountered, concluded and followed up in consequence.
 

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
My guess is that these were drones, however they didn't want to post the actual drone footage, so just released the footage of triangle bokeh of planes and stars and a IR pic of a ship light etc which show nothing,

BTW, listen to the audio in the second triangle video I posted, listen to what he describes seeing.
It sounds like he is describing the visualls you see in this video below which Corbell released , red and white lights etc

So he could be seeing what is in the video below, noting that in his audio notes

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAlY8jteU_E

Now listen to the audio in this triangle video the Dod released

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxBMPhOh3CQ
 
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
I think it's very likely that that's a significant part of what is going on. Inexperienced young sailors trying very hard to find drones, they end up "finding" them in any lights in the sky.
The next steps from UFOlogists:

- Shame you for being disrespectful to military personnel. "You should be thanking them for their service, but instead you engage in character assassination. Ad hominem much"?
- With heavy sarcasm: "So you're saying you're smarter than these highly trained professional observers. You weren't even there."
- "I think I'll go with the experts who actually use this equipment. Not some random keyboard warrior who has never touched it in his life."
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
This is stunning to me. I think we've reached the point where, for me at least, it is time to write my representatives in Congress and request hearings to look into why the US Navy is calling stars drones, can't identify planes and balloons when captured on video on their own equipment used for tracking and identifying targets, and why the Navy, exclusively, is leaking like a sieve when it comes to UAP incidents. There may in fact be crafty intelligence (or counter-intelligence and disinfo) reasons for all this, I suppose, but the situation looks terrible for the Navy, and if we're having congressional hearings on this stuff, it is probably time to include these sorts of considerations.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
This is stunning to me. I think we've reached the point where, for me at least, it is time to write my representatives in Congress and request hearings to look into why the US Navy is calling stars drones, can't identify planes and balloons when captured on video on their own equipment used for tracking and identifying targets, and why the Navy, exclusively, is leaking like a sieve when it comes to UAP incidents. There may in fact be crafty intelligence (or counter-intelligence and disinfo) reasons for all this, I suppose, but the situation looks terrible for the Navy, and if we're having congressional hearings on this stuff, it is probably time to include these sorts of considerations.

Or... It's the classic statistical case of a few blatant blunders, mis-IDs and optical anomalies out of thousands of correct identifications that are being leaked and hyped about by vested interests/ufologists within and without the Navy. Such blunders are statistically inevitable in a huge organization full of by-and-large well-trained folks.

Leaked blunders are embarrassing for the Navy for sure and could explain why the AOIMSG is very circumspect about them -- preferring not to publicly humiliate their own servicemen while also demystifying the wildest theories about the footage by disclosing in generic terms the footage was filmed during a drone swarm incident.
 
Last edited:

3db

New Member
Okay so we have

A probable plane as a triangle they say is a drone
Triangle stars they say are drones
Something in IR they say is a drone, but looks an awful lot like a plane as well
And also a light on the Bass Strait that is listed as a drone?

So

Navy drone flap?
My guess, they were given an order to go outside and film drones, so being military personal they went outside and filmed drones to the best of their ability, and if they didnt see any obvious drones, they would check out any bright lights just in case so they could show the officer they tried. And lets be fair to them, it can take 5-30 seconds to determine if that light on the horizon is a star, or a distant airplane, especially if you are not familiar with the night sky.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Did the AOIMSG (Pentagon's Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group -- gotta love these novel acronyms for the same charade that's been kept going to pander to public demands) or Bray specifically and officially claim all the bokeh in the footage are drones? Or was it more of a passing reference to the fact that the bokeh footage was filmed during a drone encounter?
NAVY+FILMED+PYRAMID+UAPs.jpg
These show the stars from the 1704 video. Obviously, the one moving and flashing light in the other video is not a star, but this appears to be an official Pentagon slide that claims stars are drones.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
NAVY+FILMED+PYRAMID+UAPs.jpg
These show the stars from the 1704 video. Obviously, the one moving and flashing light in the other video is not a star, but this appears to be an official Pentagon slide that claims stars are drones.

In that case we have evidence of incompetence continuing to plague the UAPTF which, unfortunately, is allowed to wield the "Pentagon" stamp. I was hoping for a shift to professionalism after last year's probe and revamp.
 
Top