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

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Could this be what Counter Intelligence looks like when they don't want to share actual pics of the drones, just put out the mundane stuff that was taken during the event?
The closet we got to something showing drones , was the red/white/green light video that was leaked to Corbell. And also probably the Omaha video showing something going into the water
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Could this be what Counter Intelligence looks like when they don't want to share actual pics of the drones, just put out the mundane stuff that was taken during the event?
Well, the actual pics would also look like triangles. So there are zero reasons not to share them.

No, they really seem to have messed up here.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Well, the actual pics would also look like triangles. So there are zero reasons not to share them.

No, they really seem to have messed up here.

I don't think that through the whole event they didn't take decent pics/videos. As you can see by some of the stuff Corbell got leaked to him, even that was way better. ie the red/green/white lights video and the Omaha IR object going into the water

So no, I don't buy that at all. They also have sophisticated cameras on the ships as Dave Beaty has mentioned in the past.
Look at what the DoD released, pics/videos of a bokeh plane and stars . An IR pic of a ship light and and IR pic of a plane.
Zero pics/VIDEOS of actual drones it seems have been officially released by the DoD.
They have said it was drones, but it seems officially, they do not want to release any pics or videos of them
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't think that through the whole event they didn't take decent pics/videos. As you can see by some of the stuff Corbell got leaked to him, even that was way better. ie the red/green/white lights video and the Omaha IR object going into the water
Better how? It's different, but is there any indication it's not just other stuff being misidentified?
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Better how? It's different, but is there any indication it's not just other stuff being misidentified?
It went on for around 6 weeks from memory, and they were spotted by multiple ships (and noted in the deck logs as drones) which have advanced sensors and multiple snoopie team/crew members, yet they didnt positively id them as drones?
I find that extremely unlikely. Especially if the drones got to 100 yards of the ships as noted .
If you cant positively ID a drone a 100 yards away, there is bigger problem here. At minimum you would have conclusive IR imagery, and in the day, positive pics of them

It also appears that they fired anti drone weapons at them
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...one-system-during-2019-mystery-swarm-incident

EDIT: my bad, the Pual Hamilton vid he says CPA 100 feet in altitude off the bow. Not 100 yards away
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
It went on for around 6 weeks from memory, and they were spotted by multiple ships which have advanced sensors and multiple snoopie team members, yet they didnt positively id them as drones?
I find that extremely unlikely. Especially if the drones got to 100 yards of the ships as noted .
If you cant positively ID a drone a 100 yards away, there is bigger problem here. At minimum you would have conclusive IR imagery, and in the day, positive pics of them

There does seem to be a view in the Navy that UAS swarms are something that the US Navy is ill equipped to deal with, their equipment/protocols etc are all built to deal with Anti Ship Missiles, Aircraft, Submarine and other ships.

I found this paper from 2015 from the Naval Postgraduate School

https://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/47325

This paper examines the need for a UAV Swarm Risk Assessment Tool and how it can assist the Navy’s decision makers in assessing risk of UAV swarm threats in littoral environments, near potentially hostile countries, based on the latest intelligence. Human-centered design principles help determine the needs of experienced battle commanders. These needs form the basis of requirements and functional analysis. The system design concept consists of several parts: discrete-event simulation of UAV swarm attacks using ExtendSim, statistical analysis of the simulation data using Minitab, and a graphical user interface (GUI) that evolved as a web-app prototype written in MATLAB. Data from the simulation is analyzed and used to generate equations that calculate the effect of critical factors: physical environment, number of UAVs, distance from land, and the ship’s defensive weapons. The GUI uses these equations to provide users with the capability to vary those critical factors and analyze different courses of action and risk. The physical GUI web-app can be used as-is, tailored or expanded. The paper concludes with an analysis of the actual GUI prototype built for UAV swarm risk assessment and how it meets user needs.

There are a few other papers investigating the use of swarms as well.

https://calhoun.nps.edu/discover?query=uas+swarm

You can only identify a drone 100 yards away, if there is actually a drone 100 yards away. If you make the assumption there is a drone 100 yards away and its actually a plane 50 miles away or the star Altair then you can't id it ala Chile.

I can totally see a SNOOPIE team making the stars/drone error in the heat of the moment, that is completely understandable, especially with the equipment used.

What I find less understandable is the same error being repeated all the way to congress. But as again with Chile it happened.

What I would expect to see in congress is a report along the lines of

"SNOOPIE team aboard USS Russell recorded these videos during a reported UAS swarm, at the time they were recorded as drones later analysis by the AOIMSG concluded they were actually out of focus stars, ~see evidence pretty much like Mick's video but with way more acronyms~

As a result we have recommended new night-vision recording devices are provided to SNOOPIE teams and some sort of training etc etc"

So what did happen in that period?

A drone flap caused by a legit sighting of a civilian UAV or 2 near a ship than then spiralled into multiple false reports of drones including the false assumption of a Chinese surveillance swarm from a merchant vessel? That then never got investigated before going to congress?

I feel like there are options that are various mixes of drone flap and exercise, exercise that caused a drone flap, a pure drone flap based on no real event but just the "fear" of drones.

Either way there are seemingly issues for the Navy that need to be bought up

Does there need to be a outside of the box team, the CIA?, civilian experts etc bought into analyse these events outside of the sphere of the US Navy?
Are US Navy personnel adequately equipped and trained to identify and deal with drone swarms/drone issues?
Is the US Navy prone to drone flaps as an overreaction to the legitimate issue of drone swarms to the surface fleet?
Did China actually spy on a the US Navy from a merchant vessel, blatantly in a designated US Navy training area?

Congress is the right place to ask these questions, but instead they are asking questions about aliens disabling nuclear missiles...
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
"SNOOPIE team aboard USS Russell recorded these videos during a reported UAS swarm, at the time they were recorded as drones later analysis by the AOIMSG concluded they were actually out of focus stars, ~see evidence pretty much like Mick's video but with way more acronyms~
Actually, having a closer look at the second tringle video I posted, the object does seem to be blinking, it could well be the flashing red/green/white light object he says he sees. That tringle vid, may actually be a drone flashing lights
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Actually, having a closer look at the second tringle video I posted, the object does seem to be blinking, it could well be the flashing red/green/white light object he says he sees. That tringle vid, may actually be a drone flashing lights
I suspect we are possibly seeing scintillation, i.e. twinkling. The variation seems rapid and random.

Visually in real colours a scintillating star appears to oscillate red/green/white it is most commonly seen on Sirius as its the brightest star generally but it will show on other bright stars, especiialy if you have dark skies.

https://www.universetoday.com/110605/sirius-ufo-trickster-extraordinaire/

1655632027997.png

Spica, Arcturus, Vega Altair would both be visible as were Saturn and Jupiter, all would be bright objects at night in the open ocean away from light pollution.
 
Last edited:

jackfrostvc

Active Member
The Omaha object flashed in a regular pattern like aircraft lights, this does not.
Very hard to say if they did in that video, it would need to be stabalised.
But getting back to my point which we seem to have strayed away from
If this is a drone event, why have the DoD not supply better than Bokeh videos , possible IR pic of a ship , and what could be a IR vid of a plane?

Did he not say in the congress UAP meeting that it was a drone event?
The ship logs from multiple ships and nights noting drones go towards backing that up
As does them firing anti drone weapons

The point was, if this is a drone event as they said, where is the proof positive ID info they would have needed to make that conclusion, and why has pics / videos that don't seem to show drones been provided tov the thedrive.

They must have lots of pics/videos and IR data they collected throughout the event from all those ships and time. I'm sure they used that to positively ID the objects as drones
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Very hard to say if they did in that video, it would need to be stabalised.
But getting back to my point which we seem to have strayed away from
If this is a drone event, why have the DoD not supplied any more than Bokeh videos , possible IR pic of a ship , and what could be a IR vid of a plane?

Did he not say in the congress UAP meeting that it was a drone event?
The ship logs from multiple ships and nights noting drones go towards backing that up
As does them firing anti drone weapons

The point was, if this is a drone event as they said, where is the proof positive ID info they would have needed to make that conclusion, and why has pics / videos that don't seem to show drones been provided tov the thedrive.

They must have lots of pics/videos and IR data they collected throughout the event from all those ships and time. I'm sure they used that to positively ID the objects as drones
I agree, its all very odd, there is not a single conclusive piece of evidence in The Drive articles that shows a drone.

The only image I've seen that is undeniably a drone from the Navy is this one

https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...ntified-uas-revealed-in-foia-request-on-uaps/

1655636116042.png
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
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.

This slide from the Navy seems to specifically say that objects identified by Mick as stars are drones.

1655637353273.png
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Wow certain aspects of Reddit are really freaking out over this analysis, I mean the easiest thing in the world for "dishonest alien denying skeptics" to do would be to say "look there we go they are drones the Navy confirmed it, just regular human made drones, not alien spaceships. Corbell was wrong."

But instead we look at the drone claim and find it lacking as well..

I'm trying hard to work out why the reaction is so strong. I wish we had a psychologist on the fora.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
Well, the actual pics would also look like triangles. So there are zero reasons not to share them.

No, they really seem to have messed up here.

Mick, have you thought of sending a personal unpublicized email to the AOIMSG or even their superiors which, on one hand, applauds the purpose of their work, while, on the other, offers assistance in footage and image analysis?

In your letter of offering assistance you could raise the bokeh issue as an example of where you could be helpful with a link to your video "The US Navy Thinks These Stars are Drones":

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

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, have you thought of sending a personal unpublicized email to the AOIMSG or even their superiors which, on one hand, applauds the purpose of their work, while, on the other, offers assistance in footage and image analysis?
I don't think that's the type of thing where you can just send an email. I'd need an introduction from someone.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Maybe the somebody at UAPTF really beileves that there are lots of Chinese drone encounters going on out there. Rightly or wrongly. The whole USS Kidd encounter always had a "Battle of Los Angeles" feel about it. Maybe the investigation did too?
There's a saying that goes, "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like nail". If you're looking for foreign threats, everything starts to look like one.

Wow certain aspects of Reddit are really freaking out over this analysis, I mean the easiest thing in the world for "dishonest alien denying skeptics" to do would be to say "look there we go they are drones the Navy confirmed it, just regular human made drones, not alien spaceships. Corbell was wrong."

But instead we look at the drone claim and find it lacking as well..

I'm trying hard to work out why the reaction is so strong. I wish we had a psychologist on the fora.
Super ironically, the "it's stars" explanation is the one that's most likely to show an extraterrestrial civilisation—unfortunately very far away. ;)

"It's some kind of craft", even if labeled a drone, leaves the possibility open that it might be alien visitors, while "it's stars" just shuts the door on it.

It occurs to me that the main distinction between the two types of UFOlogists is "I want to believe" vs. "I want to know". If we really have alien visitors, for sure I'd like to know, who wouldn't? But I'd hate to think it happened when it didn't, and that's the difference.
(I think this applies to pretty much everything we discuss on Metabunk, from Flat Earth to elections.)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The above is from the July 17 video, there's another video shot July 30
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxBMPhOh3CQ


I didn't talk about that, as, while it looked like a star, I didn't identify it. But I just got the original footage from The Drive, and was able to identify the star as Capella. The light below right from it is on the ship.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
@Mick West
Would be good if you asked Travis Taylor for an interview. I'd like to hear what he hss to say about the Bokeh. stars, his viewpoints etc
I assume you mean that in the context of :

Article:
Television viewers know astrophysicist Dr. Travis Taylor as an intrepid investigator of UFOs and the paranormal at Skinwalker Ranch and on other History Channel programs. Only a handful of people in the world knew that Taylor was leading a double life, secretly working as the chief scientist for the Pentagon’s UAP Task Force.


I've asked him on Twitter about the triangles. Let's see how that goes.
Source: https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1539470183588171776
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
I assume you mean that in the context of :

Article:
Television viewers know astrophysicist Dr. Travis Taylor as an intrepid investigator of UFOs and the paranormal at Skinwalker Ranch and on other History Channel programs. Only a handful of people in the world knew that Taylor was leading a double life, secretly working as the chief scientist for the Pentagon’s UAP Task Force.


I've asked him on Twitter about the triangles. Let's see how that goes.
Source: https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1539470183588171776

I'd ask him for an interview. There is a lot you could ask him
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
I'd ask him for an interview. There is a lot you could ask him
An interview without specifics at this point just leads to the Elizondo interview, round in circles, vague allusions to the "real" evidence etc.

Let's see the science on these specific images then maybe have an interview directly about that.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
The above is from the July 17 video, there's another video shot July 30
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxBMPhOh3CQ


I didn't talk about that, as, while it looked like a star, I didn't identify it. But I just got the original footage from The Drive, and was able to identify the star as Capella. The light below right from it is on the ship.
What Lat Long do you have in Stellarium? I would like to recreate. Thanks
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The above is from the July 17 video, there's another video shot July 30

What Lat Long do you have in Stellarium? I would like to recreate. Thanks
2022-06-22_02-52-18.jpg

That's for a log entry. There's also a location given in the video. But I didn't bother using it as it would not make a huge difference. The stars won't change relative to each other. It would be interesting if it could be refined somewhat.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Green Pyramid Original files from DoD:
https://www.metabunk.org/f/DOD_108981161-1920x1080-9000k.mp4
https://www.metabunk.org/f/300757ZJUL19.INTERACTION WITH UAS.RSL.001.UNCLASS.wmv
https://www.metabunk.org/f/170411ZJUL19.INTERACTION WITH UNK UAS.RSL.001.UNCLASS.wmv

WMVs converted to mp4
https://www.metabunk.org/f/300757ZJUL19.INTERACTION WITH UAS.RSL.001.UNCLASS.mp4
https://www.metabunk.org/f/170411ZJUL19.INTERACTION WITH UNK UAS.RSL.001.UNCLASS.mp4

Via The Drive

Filename are DDHHMMZMonYr, so 30-July-2019 0757Z and 17-July-2019 0411Z, however the times don't match what is said in the audio.

30-July verbal time is 0937Z
17-July verbal time is 0424Z
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
@Mick West
Thanks I checked your work and it is accurate as expected. We could probably mess with the oculars plugin for Stellarium to approximate the image circle of the NVGs but I don't think it would demonstrate it any more effectively.

Why is this case the one that has seen the Scooby Doo style reveal of Travis Taylor of Skinwalker Ranch infamy as the "Chief Scientist" at AATIP/AAWSAP? Who I now presume is also likely responsible in some part for the initial analysis of GIMBAL et al?

The case that is fairly easily demonstrated to be mundane with easily verifiable repeatable demonstrations but has the added weirdness of the Navy itself apparently making the bizarre error that it's drones.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Why is this case the one that has seen the Scooby Doo style reveal of Travis Taylor of Skinwalker Ranch infamy as the "Chief Scientist" at AATIP/AAWSAP? Who I now presume is also likely responsible in some part for the initial analysis of GIMBAL et al?
Did he work for AATIP/AAWSAP or BAASS? I see he is on the most recent Skinwalker Ranch nonsense, but his Wiki page doesn't mention him at the DIA or BAASS.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why is this case the one that has seen the Scooby Doo style reveal of Travis Taylor of Skinwalker Ranch infamy as the "Chief Scientist" at AATIP/AAWSAP? Who I now presume is also likely responsible in some part for the initial analysis of GIMBAL et al?
He was not chief scientist at AATIP, he was chief scientist at more recent the UAPTF, and contributed to the UAP report last year.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's a comparison of the star Capella, out of focus, circular aperture, with the star Capella in the Navy video - to show the flickering is similar.

 

LilWabbit

Active Member
He was not chief scientist at AATIP, he was chief scientist at more recent the UAPTF, and contributed to the UAP report last year.

And he, together with Lou, has contributed to an unprofessional AATIP/UAPTF modus operandi which even the AOIMSG seems to have inherited although neither of them are employed by this latest iteration of the same entity. Below I have listed four facts to demonstrate an AATIP/UAPTF MO of seeking out and being satisfied with incomplete Navy intelligence products (i.e. incomplete according to the Navy's own standards) that are sufficiently sketchy to whet the imagination and sufficiently trivial to be releasable/leakable to the public:

(1) The July 17 video of a young SNOOPIE team leader narrating the "UAS" sighting onboard USS Russell follows a textbook recon report template (observer-location-description of activity). Hence, by default, the 'hazard' report does not purport to be an exhaustive analysis of the sighted phenomena.

The work of a SNOOPIE team (similar to reconnaissance activities in the air force and the army) is time-critical due to operational or training requirements. These reports are therefore by default sketchy first glimpses rather than representing the final well-crunched product of DoD ISR. The latter is almost invariably internal and classified.

Article:
The time-critical work of a SNOOPIE team:

"Once the information is recorded, the team has less than an hour to upload the evidence, export the recordings, classify the final product and inform the proper personnel of the events that took place."


(2) The photographs or video footage filmed by SNOOPIE teams commonly reach public audiences far and wide.

Article:
The public end-users of SNOOPIE team records:

"According to Paulauskas, the recorded information can go anywhere in the world, including all major news channels and even on the desk of the president."


(3) According to Luis Elizondo (as shared by @NorCal Dave on another thread), his office (AATIP at the time) "had multiple meetings with eyewitnesses to include pilots, radar operators, and ship's crew". In other words, Elizondo's modus operandi for the AATIP/UAPTF has been for the office to focus on interviewing "eyewitnesses" at lower ranks and citing their sketchy and mildly bewildered-sounding initial contact reports, coupled with sketchy footage, as authoritative fully-vetted Navy intelligence products. This pattern obviously suits the UFO narrative of 'Pentagon, the world's top agency and best-resourced human institution for identification of stuff, being at a loss regarding these sightings'.

(4) Proper ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) is a much more broad, time-consuming, inter-disciplinary and rigorous process embedded into the core organization of most modern militaries. It is more 'scientific' than the fringe exercise that is the UAPTF's, while also not to be equated or confused with the scientific method owing to very different operational goals:

Article:
ISR is the coordinated and integrated acquisition, processing and provision of timely, accurate, relevant, coherent and assured information and intelligence to support commander's conduct of activities. Land, sea, air and space platforms have critical ISR roles in supporting operations in general. By massing ISR assets, an improved clarity and depth of knowledge can be established.[5] ISR encompasses multiple activities related to the planning and operation of systems that collect, process, and disseminate data in support of current and future military operations.[6][7]


Article:
Both surveillance and reconnaissance can include visual observation (for example soldiers on the ground covertly watching a target, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) with cameras), as well as electronic observation.

The difference between surveillance and reconnaissance has to do with time and specificity; surveillance is a more prolonged and deliberate activity, while reconnaissance missions are generally rapid and targeted to retrieve specific information.

Once surveillance and reconnaissance information has been obtained, intelligence specialists can analyse it, fuse it with other information from other data sources and produce the intelligence which is then used to inform military and civilian decision-makers, particularly for the planning and conduct of operations.


The above four facts account for an unprofessional UAPTF pattern of data-collection and analysis, under the prestigious guise of "Pentagon", which the AOIMSG may well have inherited even after the recent 'purge' of its most famous UFO enthusiast members (Lou and Travis). An undisciplined MO of seeking out incomplete ISR products (initial eyewitness interviews, initial recon reports and poor footage) directly from low-ranking personnel, and being contented in analyzing them in a rushed fashion (read: sloppily) with limited human and financial resources in isolation from more detailed analysis carried out within or without the DoD on the same incidents, could explain why the AOIMSG does not quite yet:

(a) Spend sufficient time delving independently and scrupulously into footage analysis, or into triangulating internal Navy evidence with other data sources available outside the DoD for the general public, such as star maps and vessel locators;

(b) Enjoy sufficient internal DoD confidence to gain access to complete and classified DoD ISR products, including regarding the incidents under its 'investigation'. The political underpinnings of the outfit's very existence 'within' the Pentagon, and its highly public profile, may well add to this lack of internal trust.

It also demonstrates the ridiculousness and mismatch of the title "Chief Scientist" which is the first I've seen in any defense establishment. I work with one and can vouch we would never consider such a vague, childish and pompous title for even our best scientifically trained minds. The title has been all-too-obviously coined for public appearance of expertise (in order to hide the glaring lack thereof).

P.S. I vaguely remember having read somewhere (?) Lou mentioning that when he was with the UAPTF he became increasingly frustrated with his office's lack of access to classified DoD data, and with not being taken seriously, resulting in his 'resignation'. If so, it would indeed be indicative of a trust issue within the DoD towards a fringe outfit created and led by ufologists, routinely bypassing official chains. His later leaks would have only confirmed that those trust issues were well-founded and would probably take time to resolve even after his resignation.
 
Last edited:

DavidB66

Active Member
It also demonstrates the ridiculousness and mismatch of the title "Chief Scientist" which is the first I've seen in any defence establishment
The term Chief Scientist (or variants such as Chief Scientific Officer or Chief Scientific Adviser) is used quite often in the British government system. For example Sir Patrick Vallance, the government's Chief Scientific Adviser, was very prominent in the news during the Covid crisis. There is a distinct scientific branch within the UK Civil Service, just as there is a legal branch and a statistical branch, with a separate promotion and ranking system. The intention is that this will give these functions independence from the mainstream Civil Service, so that they can give unbiased technical advice to Government Ministers. The Ministry of Defence has its own Chief Scientific Adviser, who is currently this lady:

https://www.gov.uk/government/peopl...=Role-,Biography,of Defence in September 2019.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
The term Chief Scientist (or variants such as Chief Scientific Officer or Chief Scientific Adviser) is used quite often in the British government system. For example Sir Patrick Vallance, the government's Chief Scientific Adviser, was very prominent in the news during the Covid crisis. There is a distinct scientific branch within the UK Civil Service, just as there is a legal branch and a statistical branch, with a separate promotion and ranking system. The intention is that this will give these functions independence from the mainstream Civil Service, so that they can give unbiased technical advice to Government Ministers. The Ministry of Defence has its own Chief Scientific Adviser, who is currently this lady:

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/angela-mclean#:~:text=Role-,Biography,of Defence in September 2019.

We have scientific, research and investigations advisers/officers/directors of various ranks in the military. But no "Chief Scientist". There may well be other contexts where "Chief Scientist" is a sensible title. Scientists of various disciplines in our ranks are usually specified by their discipline (cryptologists, biologists, physicists, mathematicians, linguists, etc.) rather than called vaguely as "scientists" let alone "Chief Scientists". Established universities similarly specify the discipline of a particular scientist in their job titles. "Chief Scientist" in the UAPTF is, for me, the equivalent of a "King of Art" occupying the position of a director in a provincial music school.

Civil/public service titles usually include a term specifying their service role (adviser, officer, inspector, counsellor, director, etc.) just like in your linked example (Chief Scientific Adviser Prof. Angela McLean). The mismatch for the title "Chief Scientist" is all the more blatant when used in a tiny fringe outfit carrying out demonstrably incompetent UFO investigations.
 
Top