Reverse Engineering the ATFLIR to find Range and Temp to/of the Gimbal UAP

[markus]

Those are terrible quotes/explanations, both I would say are *jast plain wrong*. EMR is *not* typically known as light, nor should it be, as most of it is not light, as it's not in the visible range. And the "optical" radiation spectrum *is* the "visible* spectrum.

I imagine word usage varies across fields. As someone whose background is in quantum field theory, I can tell you we use the word "light" pretty much indiscriminately to refer to light of all wavelengths, from the AU-scale (e.g. Hawking radiation from supermassive black holes) all the way to gamma rays -- incidentally, what I call a gamma ray, and what I've always seen called gamma rays, is light with energy per photon on the order of 0.1 MeV or above. But I'm aware that there are fields whose practitioners would call such light "x-rays" if its source is, say, bremsstrahlung, rather than nuclear processes. At any rate, I found the descriptions in the quotes adequate. Infrared radiation behaves very similar to visible light is, I think, the important takeaway.

 

[LilWabbit]

Spot on. Taylor's fallacy boils down to using a digitally processed IR image as a thermometer from which an object's temperature can be accurately extrapolated while ignoring a range of digital image-production and optical variables.

A related fallacy is the assumption that invisible electromagnetic radiation isn't physically light and hence cannot produce a glare or other optical effects on an IR camera which are similar to the optical effects of visible light in standard cameras.

The "related fallacy" (in italics in the above) relates to the topic as follows:

(1) It's been advanced by other ufologists, as a counter-argument to Mick, that there's no glare in IR images as glare, they claim, only relates to the visible spectrum.

(2) The "related fallacy" concerning the physics of light could therefore explain why Taylor's 'main fallacy' (in bold in the above) entirely ignores optical factors such as glare, sensor type, pixel size, perceived brightness not varying with distance etc.

(3) The 'main fallacy' of regarding the IR image as a reasonably accurate thermometer also explains why Taylor doesn't trust the range-to-target readings shown or mentioned in some of the footage and considers even their absence in others (GIMBAL) suspect. To him Mick's ranges just don't add up to the temperatures the IR image demonstrates by extrapolation.

This in addition to Taylor ignoring camera settings and image edits as factors.

P.S. Even some non-ufologists seem to fall into the same trap by claiming optics don't factor in in the infrared spectrum because infrared light is invisible to the naked eye.

 

[jarlrmai]

(3) The 'main fallacy' of regarding the IR image as a reasonably accurate thermometer also explains why Taylor doesn't trust the explicit distance readings shown in the footage. To him they must be doctored since they just don't add up to the temperatures the IR image demonstrates by extrapolation.

There are no explicit distance readings in GIMBAL, there is in GO FAST but not GIMBAL or FLIR1.

The distance matters because if it is close the the modelling suggests a unlikely flight path, if distant then a simple straight line path is sufficient.

 

[LilWabbit]

There are no explicit distance readings in GIMBAL, there is in GO FAST but not GIMBAL or FLIR1.

The distance matters because if it is close the the modelling suggests a unlikely flight path, if distant then a simple straight line path is sufficient.

Was referring to the other video of the jets.

Mick's OP:

"Mick: they actually have the distance on-screen and in the audio, so we don't need to, 5.5NM"

I amended the sentence in my previous post accordingly. Thanks for noticing.

 

[jarlrmai]

Was referring to the other video of the jets.

Mick's OP:

"Mick: they actually have the distance on-screen and in the audio, so we don't need to, 5.5NM"

I amended the sentence in my previous post accordingly. Thanks for noticing.

Yeah I might be interpreting it incorrectly but I think @Mick West was just pointing out in the reference footage we don't need to triangulate to get range as its just there directly on the screen. I assume he knows the specific reference video that was used? It would be nice to know which one it is?

Travis I think is not saying any explicit distant readings in ATFLIR videos are "doctored." as far as I can tell he just wasn't familiar enough with the overlay to see that the distance figure was right there (possibly another red flag with his understanding of the system as a whole.) Unless he made some claim otherwise elsewhere?

The main flaw as I see it in his reasoning with comparisons to other footage is the same basic assumption that leads to the all the incorrect statements, i.e. that the shape of the object in GIMBAL is the shape of the what we see on screen, which it isn't as Mick has shown it is a glare with the de-rotation analysis.

 

[LilWabbit]

Unless he made some claim otherwise elsewhere?

His doctoring claim concerned the GIMBAL footage where he seems to claim the "range to target" has been edited out, citing confirmation from Hollywood that the footage has been tampered with.

 

[henrikmorsing]

Do we have access to an archive of some sort, were we can see lots of other images like that, that is not claimed to be special in any way. Doing extensive analysis on a single image includes too much guesswork in terms of what different planes and temperatures looks like and how exactly they will look like on different instruments.

So if we had 100 other similar pictures to compare with, it might be obvious if something is out of the ordinary - or just look like any other picture.

Lets say 100 normal airline jets, some fighterjets with afterburner, different kinds of ballons, birds, special weather conditions etc.

Would help a lot.

 

[jarlrmai]

Do we have access to an archive of some sort, were we can see lots of other images like that, that is not claimed to be special in any way. Doing extensive analysis on a single image includes too much guesswork in terms of what different planes and temperatures looks like and how exactly they will look like on different instruments.

So if we had 100 other similar pictures to compare with, it might be obvious if something is out of the ordinary - or just look like any other picture.

Lets say 100 normal airline jets, some fighterjets with afterburner, different kinds of ballons, birds, special weather conditions etc.

Would help a lot.

No, we looked extensively when the 'UFO' vids first came out and we have footage from a few similar MWIR systems but we don't have much specific ATFLIR footage, especially not of distant targets.

If you look around, the 3 Navy "UFO" videos are almost unique in being uncropped longish plain ATRFLIR footage with overlays intact. This is likely because of the classified nature of the technology. In fact the "UFO" vids were so unusual that I believe the makers of the DCS F/18 sim were actually able to learn new things from them that they did not know about the overlays.

The other issues is that if you remove the UFO story context the Navy videos are actually sort of boring, other footage out there is out there because it shows something interesting, or is from the manufacturers so is designed to show off the equipment

 

[henrikmorsing]

No, we looked extensively when the 'UFO' vids first came out and we have footage from a few similar MWIR systems but we don't have much specific ATFLIR footage, especially not of distant targets.

If you look around, the 3 Navy "UFO" videos are almost unique in being uncropped longish plain ATRFLIR footage with overlays intact. This is likely because of the classified nature of the technology. In fact the "UFO" vids were so unusual that I believe the makers of the DCS F/18 sim were actually able to learn new things from them that they did not know about the overlays.

The other issues is that if you remove the UFO story context the Navy videos are actually sort of boring, other footage out there is out there because it shows something interesting, or is from the manufacturers so is designed to show off the equipment

Ok. Would it be possible to request video recordings like that? Maybe from other countries? Just to have something to being building a library of over time.

Agree the videos a kind of boring without the UAP. When I saw them the first time, even just watching 1 time I immediately saw the things Mick illustrated in his investigations. Gimbal rotation, paralle ax object vs background, go fast not going fast. To my big surprise, the interpretations was really strange. Even Louis Elizondo admitted to Mick that he didn't know how the camera worked and just ignored what Mick said every time and said "I have seen other videos". Voice over was kind of strange too like "look there is a whole fleet of them". Was he looking at another screen or out the cockpit? And "look it's rotating". Was he just looking on the screen there and not visually, and how did he come to the conclusion it was rotation just be looking at a screen with a camera that was actually rotating.

Anyway, Mick is doing at fantastic job also talking to these people.

 

[henrikmorsing]

Infrared is often explained as a representation of temperature on the UFO videos. But it is also light (electromagnetic radiation) that will be reflected from surfaces, just like visible light is reflected.

Imaging systems treats the sensor data to make a visual image on a screen. They might be in black and white, in colors, contrast enhanced, data overlay etc.

Be careful with the interpretation of an infrared image to show the actual temperature of an object. Especially black and white with no temperature markings on it.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-tQmiRJwuho3qEM8Cfc4q5dYIQPTRXUS2wbg4D_GtPg/edit?usp=sharing

 

[henrikmorsing]

Repost with corrections: Temperature reading on Pentagon UFO videos​

1) Can anyone confirm that is is NOT possible to read a specifik temperature of the tracked objects in the Pentagon videos.
They show relative hot/cold and has enhanced contrast to make it easier for pilots to see. The is no temperature readings. The normal contrast setting is so high, that relative hot will be completely white and cold completely black (or visa version depending on the setting, white=hot or black=hot). Point is: contrast is extreme for a reason. The exact temperature is not relevant or readable in that specifik instrument.

2) Can anyone confirm that infrared is REFLECTED and does not necessarily show an objects internal or surface temperature. It is NOT possible to conclude an objects temperature, just by looking at a Black White FLIR image.
Think of blank surfaces like painted metal, glass, mylar, plastic etc. A blank mylar balloon reflect almost 100% of the light, also Infrared. The IR image of a mylar balloon does not show the balloons temperature, but mostly reflected IR. Exhaust from a jet is clearly hotter than the tyres or outer surface of the plane. BUT you can not know the temperature from a black white IR image alone.

I would like to present this to people claiming the FLIR images show extreme temperatures above melting point of steel etc.

The pictures is from a video showing a Lockheed Martin F-35 filmed using the FLIR 380-HDc from Teledyne. It's from 2016 so a fairly new system. I added the comments. (Link to the video below)






Video the images is captured from: