I'm talking about the Navy video's clouds. I can distinguish trees and clouds :-D
Ahh, my apologies.
I'm assuming at least someone in the Navy has used some NVG before...
Of course some people do, but a lot of the crew doesn't - it's not their job. Most of the crew is doing other things.
Speaking of the Navy, umm, what is the best evidence that they responded to the video?
The only thing I saw in a quick search was some UFO advocacy website claiming that Navy had confirmed that they were authentic videos from navy personnel. That in and of it'self doesn't suggest that the video showed a UFO, just that the video was authentic and from a navy person. I don't doubt either of those - if I can use my NVD to create that triangular pattern out of a star, then there's no doubt that a navy person could do so as well and it would be a completely authentic video -- a completely authentic video made from an ill-focused NVD picture of an airplane..
So what's the best we got? Did the Navy release a document I can see from their own servers, or just a pro-UFO group claiming that the Navy said the video was authentic navy video?
Do we have ANY background? any first person account by the person who shot the film?
Speaking again of the Navy, I also didn't see any clues in the Navy video to back up the claim it was actually even taken from a ship. It was mounted on a cheap tripod, not a high quality gyro stabilized military spotting mount (which would be literally required for serious dependable use on a ship) - it was just on a tripod and not even a good one at that.
But even so I would excuse a SNOOPY team member (as someone said in another thread... often not an expert in photography but someone normally handling other duties) for getting disoriented and filming out of focus....
You've never been in the military. It doesn't have anything to do with snoopyness, but there are lots of very likely possibilities like Spotter Joe says to Deck Scrubber Frank "Hey I gotta run to the head, but I got this really cool NVD set up on this tripod, have a look if you like...
Or bean counter Bob is organizing inventory and sends out Scrubber Frank to test it, not realize Frank doesn't know how.
Or maybe Bob got a report that a certain unit wasn't working (maybe it wasn't focused LOL) so he goes and personally tests it but doesn't know what he's doing.
Or perhaps Frank is pretty good friends with his commander, and one day he's like "Sir, may I try out the NVD?" Boss says "Yeah sure just don't drop it overboard."
It is a very weak argument to say that the Navy would never let an untrained person operate an NVD.
And especially when there are no focused points smaller than the UFO. If there were SOME far details that were in good focus, then we'd have something to talk about. But literally nothing in the distance is in focus either.
I can also understand if an analyst in the UAPTF saw the video and didn't realise it could be bokeh... (this would just demonstrate how wrong it is to keep all this data in closed classified silos. The collective brain power of the internet will solve what the best experts in the world might not.)
However....if the source of the video was an airliner then it is an inexcusable show of incompetence.
What's our best evidence so far that a navy analyst watched the video and gave some indication that the NVD was being correctly operated? All I could find was a UFO sig site claiming that the navy said it was an authentic video, not that it was an authentic representation of reality.
How could the sailors not know and not clearly see the airliners on radar? How could the analysts studying the case not see the airliners in the radar tracks (I'm assuming they had them).
Only explanation is that they were so disoriented that the airliners were much further away than they assumed the objects they were observing were. So on the radar track they didn't even consider them as they were far off and:
- they couldn't see anything near by
OR
- they could see something else on radar and they simply filmed the wrong thing in the clouds/fog
Filming the wrong object would explain its inclusion in the UAPTF report. They have other sensor data that confirmed what the sailors thought they were seeing: "drones nearby the ship" as the ship logs report. However they actually filmed out of focus far away airliners but nobody questioned it as other sensor data corroborated it.
Can you please kindly direct me to a copy of that UAPTF report? Thanks!
And why did Susan Gough have a canned reply ready within 24 hours of a supposed "leak" that didn't require any approval from superiors from higher up the chain of command?
How did she know so fast the origin of those supposedly classified images? How could she comment so fast seemingly without consulting anyone else? This is not how the military bureaucratic machine usually deals with leaks.
This is 99% bokeh and 70% the source is an airliner but a lot of questions remain I think...
I haven't read Susan's canned reply, where would I find that?
Thanks!