Simulating the Nimitz UFO video as a blurry plane

[Mick West]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1oTg0kxzDs


When I originally saw the Nimitz footage, I assumed the black blob was actually in infrared

But it's actually in TV mode.

I wondered if I could recreate it, so I made a clip of a silhouetted plane rotating, and looked at it from various angles:

Then tried down-sizing it and adding noise etc.



The version in the video I did above still has wings detectable, but I think it gives a reasonable idea of how the shape might have come about - especially with multiple generation of copying of the video, possibly including some analog format like VHS, and then a very low resolution digitization.

Still, I'm not sure on exactly what pipeline would best simulate what we see. I attach the source video I used if anyone wants to play with it.

 

[Gerard]

I don't know. The wings could disappear if the plane were viewed from the side but I think more problematic is the absence of any hint of a vertical stabilizer in the video. I think that structure is quite prominent in almost all fixed-wing aircraft, except the B-2, and it remains clearly visible in your simulation.

I'm having a bit of trouble seeing an airplane shape dissolve into this featureless rectangle with distance/blurring.

 

[Agent K]

It was moving left and viewed from below (5 degree elevation), so I stand by my previous interpretation of it.
Mick, can you try this geometry?
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/223161/

 

[Agent K]

Still, I'm not sure on exactly what pipeline would best simulate what we see.

To simulate the video that's on the Internet, you'd first simulate the raw interlaced 480i video, overlay some symbology on it, then shrink it in half and compress it to .mp4 so that the symbology looks as blurry as in the video on the Internet.

 

[Mick West]

The original leaked video file, f4-2007 is:

Video MPEG Video, 352x240, 29.970 fps, 1150 kb/s
Audio MPEG Audio, 192 kb/s CBR, 44.1 kHz, Stereo

Content from External Source

Interesting there's an audio track there. I thought it was silent, but there is something there, looks like a noisy 60hz hum, in stereo.

 

[Mick West]

This video:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgHjVvqLXV8


Is good reference for dark planes in the distance, they even give a 90 degree turn at various altitudes, and might better give an indication of how visible the vertical stabilizer and wings are.

Right at the start:






1:05:19


1:14:11


1:53:08


These all change shape quickly and are generally banked a lot more than the Nimitz shape. But that' because they are turning in for landing.

 

[Mick West]

Here's a fascinating one from 2:07:00


It's briefly forming a quite large transient aerodynamic contrail.

 

[Mick West]

02:43:04 - Similar to my original attempt. Probably not like this though, as it's flying the wrong way.

 

[Agent K]

The original leaked video file, f4-2007 is:

Video MPEG Video, 352x240, 29.970 fps, 1150 kb/s
Audio MPEG Audio, 192 kb/s CBR, 44.1 kHz, Stereo

Content from External Source

Interesting there's an audio track there. I thought it was silent, but there is something there, looks like a noisy 60hz hum, in stereo.

Raw video would've been 480i 60 fps, 8 to 16-bit pixels, which comes out to 74-147 Mbps, so we're talking 128x compression down to 1150 kbps. The whole video shakes too, like at the 56-second mark.
The audio just sounded like noise to me.

 

[Agent K]

This video:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgHjVvqLXV8
Is good reference for dark planes in the distance, they even give a 90 degree turn at various altitudes, and might better give an indication of how visible the vertical stabilizer and wings are.

Bug/bird UFO at 3:15 . Don't blink or you'll miss it.

 

[Mick West]

The audio just sounded like noise to me.

It's very different to the loud cockpit/static noise from Gimbal.


vs Nimitz:




It has one click at the start, then some very low frequency low volume semi-regular hum that looks to be around 60hz. I'd suspect two possible sources:

1. The video going through some kind of analog process, i.e. the 480i AV signal being fed into an analog->digital converter, but with no audio or audio disconnected. Induced currents in the cable would give a low level audio signal, which is then digitized. So the noise is the background electronic hum of the room, and some random noise.
2. The video shot off a monitor using a camcorder.

 

[Scaramanga]

I wish I could still find the superb and detailed video analysis that conclusively proves the Chilean Navy 'UFO' was nothing more mysterious than a jet liner. If anyone knows the one I mean....could they post a link. I'm tired of grainy infra-red or other videos. I want something in 4K that shows the damned nuts and bolts of the alleged 'UFO' and isn't an obvious fake or miss-interpretation. Why...in this day and age of high quality video...are we still being subject to grainy, blurry, images of little more than a few pixels in the distance ?

 

[deirdre]

If anyone knows the one I mean....could they post a link.

From Metabunk? https://www.metabunk.org/explained-chilean-navy-ufo-video-aerodynamic-contrails-flight-ib6830.t8306/

 

[igoddard]

Kean posted this collection of the Nimitz target in TV mode...



It looks more like a jet profile with its nose on the left and rudder on the right (opposite to your example). There seem to be hints of an upward protrusion on the right, fitting where a rudder would be. So if it's a jet, it would be flying from the ATFLIR pilot's right to left, just as we determined the target was flying. Which is also the orientation Agent K placed it...



Now I'm suspecting Agent K nailed it!

 

[Mick West]

It was moving left and viewed from below (5 degree elevation), so I stand by my previous interpretation of it.
Mick, can you try this geometry?

I've been playing around with it, but it takes some time, and is a bit fiddly. We'd probably have to try a bunch of different planes.

 

[Agent K]

I've been playing around with it, but it takes some time, and is a bit fiddly. We'd probably have to try a bunch of different planes.

Remember that Cmdr. Fravor also said that when the radar tried to lock onto the target, there were indications of jamming. He talks about it here.
Source: https://youtu.be/KUyGnFFilP0?t=1877

It's pretty obvious when it happens. You go, "I'm being jammed." Jamming by something other than us playing with ourselves is technically an act of war, just so you know. So this thing jams, and what he [the WSO] does, because he sees it being jammed right away, he can castle real quick and go from that Azimuth-Altitude, he can immediately go to his targeting FLIR, so that's what he does, he castles over, he gets the targeting FLIR, and then he takes the passive track because obviously your radar's not working and not going to work. So, that's the (radar) tape that no one has seen. I have, a lot... So, when you see that, and it's jamming, that's when he gets the passive track, and that's the minute and 30 seconds that you see.

Content from External Source

Edit: Also, the ATFLIR video shows the range as 99.9, because the radar couldn't lock on.

By the way, when Fravor was interviewed on the Fighter Pilot Podcast, he said that the WSO who captured the video was Chad "Nuts" Underwood.

The jamming sounds to me like it was an aircraft with a jammer, like one of ours "playing with ourselves."

If you go back a bit in the above video, they also discuss how the object could know the classified CAP point, which is also consistent with us playing with decoys or spoofing.

 

[Agent K]

I've been playing around with it, but it takes some time, and is a bit fiddly. We'd probably have to try a bunch of different planes.

If you automate it, you can sell it as model-based template-matching ATR (Automatic Target Recognition).

 

[Mick West]

If you automate it, you can sell it as model-based template-matching ATR (Automatic Target Recognition).

I have been musing about ways of automating it. I could get all the different models (or at least major variations - 1,2,4 engines, T-tails, B2, fighters, commercial, etc) from the Sketchup Library, then render them in a JavaScript using Three.js under various lighting conditions, and simulate atmosphere, focus, and video effects with full-frame filters. The user could quickly swipe though the models and conditions.

Maybe later!

 

[jarlrmai]

My guess would be F4 Phantom

 

[Agent K]

My guess would be F4 Phantom

Metabunk member marrowmonkey superimposed a fighter jet on the video frame, though again I'd rotate it so it's seen from below. Looks like he superimposed an F-15, though he said F-18.

Maybe it was an electronic warfare aircraft like an EA-6B Prowler if it jammed the radar.

It looks like a fuzzy blob to me but just for fun I tried superimposing a picture of an f18 over one of the blobs:

 

[Gerard]

It looks like a fuzzy blob to me too. I don't think there's much hope of positively identifying this as any specific plane, or even as a plane at all.

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

There's a dedicated EW variant of the F/A-18, the EA-18G Growler:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EA-18G_Growler

Given that the target was aware of the CAP Point and allegedly emitted jamming, this would seem like a pretty good start point for your image search, to me at least.

The large EW pods under the wings could give the impression of a twin engine jet IMHO (I believe it can carry up to four, it would certainly be carrying at least a pair if it was jamming).

 

[Agent K]

There's a dedicated EW variant of the F/A-18, the EA-18G Growler:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EA-18G_Growler

Given that the target was aware of the CAP Point and allegedly emitted jamming, this would seem like a pretty good start point for your image search, to me at least.

The large EW pods under the wings could give the impression of a twin engine jet IMHO (I believe it can carry up to four, it would certainly be carrying at least a pair if it was jamming).

They didn't start flying until two years later in 2006. That's why I guessed EA-6B Prowler in my post above.

 

[Justin Dark]

I just want to make sure I understand: are you suggesting the multiple flight crews of Navy aircraft, including one dedicated surveillance plane, mistook another standard, common aircraft for the object in this video? That's honestly your take on this???

 

[Mick West]

I just want to make sure I understand: are you suggesting the multiple flight crews of Navy aircraft, including one dedicated surveillance plane, mistook another standard, common aircraft for the object in this video? That's honestly your take on this???

No, I'm saying that the object in the video looks like it could be a plane.

 

[Christophe Isbert]

Hi guys,

We should never forget what Cmdr (Ret) Fravor said on a few occasions, here is one of them: "so you had mentioned to me they were L-shaped appendages underneath the vehicle the tic-tac yeah like if you're looking at it so know about I don't know 20 percent point five percent down and kind of come out make like a little L to the right like a little down 90 degree slope I almost look like little feet sticking up could be antennas we're both of the L shapes going to to one side or the other or were there two symmetric ..."

Source: Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L-XG1F_S7I&feature=youtu.be&t=1147&fbclid=IwAR0OLRsmixSJreY4tphN-N_oATFW4_p2sMeiUwPXT7TzB9V1i9aopfkfEnk


I see what could be two appendages in a few frames in TV mode but I usually see them one at a time, I thought at first (long time ago when this video was uploaded in ATS) that these were (compression, optical, etc...) artifacts but now we have Fravor explaining what he saw when he watched the original footage. Jason Turner (USS Princeton) also mentioned these appendages but with much less details.

Here is one of the few frames where I see what could resemble a L-shaped appendage pointing to the right and below the thingy but let's not forget that it is flying from the right to the left compared to the F/A-18.

Nb: this image was not edited, I only zoomed-in on the "appendage":



Why do I say that? Simply because L-shaped appendages remind me of pitot tubes but pointed to the wrong direction in this case.

I do believe as an investigator that these descriptions should not be ignored and could help to solve these incidents and are one piece of the puzzle.

Now, do I think the Flir-1 video shows an aircraft? Not at all, not in IR mode with an aspect angle of about 90° towards the end of the video and when there's a clear outline of something radiating heat uniformly. Same with Tv mode, a tail section is always a rather large section of any aircraft in the vertical axis and the aspect angle of the thingy when seen in Tv mode should allow us to clearly see the tail section. I would be more skeptical if the aspect angle was pretty close to 0° or 180°.

Mick's demonstration using a liner with its tail section located on the left inside simply shows that when you believe too much into a given hypothesis, you may start seeing things that are not there.

Since day one I think that visually speaking, the best mundane candidate could be some sort of controlled lighter than air.


Cheers,
Chris

 

[div]

a little L to the right like a little down 90 degree slope I almost look like little feet sticking up could be antennas we're both of the L shapes going to to one side or the other or were there two symmetric ..."

might be some kind on blimp with some propellers at bottom(if they were spinning, you wouldn't be able to see them), just some pics to demonstrate that blimps do look kinda similar





and sudden disappearance of tic-tac could easily be explained with Flight Termination Unit(could be just a needle inside) being used. In that case that blimp\balloon should probably be small like in pic#3.

btw, that whole "Tic-tac started flying up(from sea level) as soon as i started flying down" is probably the same mistake of understanding vertical position of object, as in GoFast case. I think that tic-tac was already high, but looked like it was at sea level. If GoFast pilots would have started flying down, they would also report that ufo suddenly went up to 10k feet

 

[Mick West]

I do believe as an investigator that these descriptions should not be ignored and could help to solve these incidents and are one piece of the puzzle.

I've said a few times, I think the "L-shaped-appendages" are just compression artifacts. Part of the 8-pixel grid.

 

[Christophe Isbert]

I've said a few times, I think the "L-shaped-appendages" are just compression artifacts. Part of the 8-pixel grid.

Hi Mick,

Got some catching up to do. I also suspected the same thing but Fravor and Jason Turner did not watch a copy of a copy uploaded and compressed on YT and elsewhere, they both watched the original footage, so if we are seeing a compression artifact, I would say it's a "nice" fluke.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[Getoffthisplanet]

Nb: this image was not edited, I only zoomed-in on the "appendage":

What source and frame number did you use for this?

There seems to be some resampling happening.

I used this version from the "Original Flir1, Gimbal, and Go Fast UFO Video Files" thread.

Frame 1143 with a Nearest Neighbor up-scale of 2000%, which I believe is a closer approximation of the original pixels:

 

[Christophe Isbert]

Hi Getoffthisplanet,

I used another version, I think I found it here a while ago when Mick posted it.

I only grabbed a screen capture with Quicktime VP so I cannot tell you which frame I used but you'll find it easily.

Cheers,
Chris

 

[igoddard]

Hi Mick,

Got some catching up to do. I also suspected the same thing but Fravor and Jason Turner did not watch a copy of a copy uploaded and compressed on YT and elsewhere, they both watched the original footage, so if we are seeing a compression artifact, I would say it's a "nice" fluke.

Cheers,
Chris

The seeming nodules at the bottom are also fairly persistent across many frames.

While I can't imagine what an ET aircraft would or should look like, L-shaped extentions on the bottom might seem to be a terrestrial indication, with balloon leanings. But Mick thinks it's not a balloon as the Navy jet should be approaching the target much faster if it were, which seems likely. But we've never modeled this scene. Theoretically telescopic extension on a camera could be reducing so much as it approaches that the object maintains a similar size in the FOV. But, I'm not sure the screen data support that.

My biggest issue with this target is the lack of an intense heat source compared to other FLIR images of jets we've seen. It has a lot of expected characteristics of a balloon.

 

[Getoffthisplanet]

Hi Getoffthisplanet,
I only grabbed a screen capture with Quicktime VP so I cannot tell you which frame I used but you'll find it easily.

Hey Chris,

I couldn't figure out exactly which frame you pulled, so I just processed all the frames in that "black hot" section:


When zooming or scaling video media players, Youtube and web browsers use scaling algorithms that add pixels to the original video.

Not usually a problem for regular viewing because resampling when enlarging video gives a smoother and more appealing appearance.

But, when analyzing something that's only 30x30 pixels wide the addition of any pixels that weren't in the original becomes problematic.

The Nearest Neighbor algorithm produces far fewer artifacts when viewing scaled video.

Also, here's a nice comparison of interpolation results:
Source: https://matplotlib.org/3.1.1/_images/sphx_glr_interpolation_methods_001.png

All that said, since there is no chain of custody on this or any of the 3 videos that TT$A has release thus far, so the entire point is arguably mute.

 

[Christophe Isbert]

But Mick thinks it's not a balloon as the Navy jet should be approaching the target much faster if it were, which seems likely.

Hi Ian,

I don't understand the logic behind this reasoning since a LTA would be slower than an aircraft's stall speed (i.e: minimum speed) at any altitude above the F/A-18 and since the thingy is flying slightly towards the F/A-18 before it starts turning slightly to the right which modifies the aspect angle (specially visible when the WSO switches to Tv mode and at the end since the aspect angle is close to 90°).


Cheers,
Chris

 

[Christophe Isbert]

Hi guys,

It is my belief that we need Chad (WSO who monitored the thingy in the Flir-1 video with his own radar, data from Link -16 Network and the ATFLIR pod) to be interviewed by Giuliano Marinkovic.

Why Giuliano? I think that he makes the best interviews when it comes to UFO incidents and he used to operate PSRs/SSRs when he was in the Croatian Air Force.

Why an interview? Because all we all need to have much more informations from him than what we already know.

For example, when he said in the Executive Summary released by George Knapp (KLAS iTeam) that the initial tracks were at approx 30-40 nmi to the South of the aircraft, we sure need to know when this approx happened compared to what we see in the Flir-1 footage. This could be a crucial piece of information even though, this is not hard data.

EDIT: Finally understood what confused me

I've got many other questions and I will ask Giuliano to get in touch with Chad and submit a shXtload of mostly technical questions.


Cheers,
Chris

 

[TheoryQED]

I agree with Agent K and Ian Goddard and others that the plane needs to be flying the other direction (same direction as the red lines that were drawn) in order to move from 4 degrees R to 8 degrees L.

And interestingly Chad Underwood is quoted in the official incident report as saying no radar jamming occurred which contradicts the statements made by Dave Fravor.

"The radar was in a standard search mode (RWS/ 80NM/ 4bar/ intr) and the FLIR was in L+S slave (the FLIR would point in direction of a radar L+S track). There was no radio or communication interference and they had entry into the Link-16 network, Initial awareness of an object came via the radar. According to the radar display, the initial tracks were at approximately 30-40 nm to the south of the aircraft. Lt._____was controlling the radar and FLIR and attempted multiple times to transition the radar to Single Target Track (STT) mode on the object. The radar could not take a lock, the b-sweep would raster around the hit, build an initial aspect vector (which never stabilized) and then would drop and continue normal RWS b-sweep. When asked, LT.______ stated that there were no jamming cues (strobe, champagne bubbles, “any normal EA indications”). It “just appeared as if the radar couldn’t hack it.” The radar couldn’t receive enough information to create a single target track file. The FLIR, in L+S slave, pointed in direction of the initial track flies as the radar attempted lock. The FLIR showed an object at 0 ATA and approximately -5deg elevation (Figure 2). According to LT.______ “the target was best guess co- altitude or a few thousand feet below,” estimating the object to be between 15-20 thousand feet. The object, according to the FLIR, appeared stationary (Figure 3). There was no discernable movement from the object with the only closure being a result of the aircraft’s movement. As LT._____ watched the object it began to move out of FLIR field of view to the left. LT._____ made no attempt to slew the FUR and subsequently lost situational awareness to the object. The Flight continued with training mission with no further contact with object."

https://archive.org/stream/TheNimit...REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0_djvu.txt

 

[Christophe Isbert]

Hi there,

And interestingly Chad Underwood is quoted in the official incident report as saying no radar jamming occurred which contradicts the statements made by Dave Fravor.

You should post what Fravor said...

"According to the radar display, the initial tracks were at approximately 30-40 nm to the south of the aircraft."

I know you did not write this...but..

Which radar? Should we assume it was Chad's radar when it comes to the initial tracks? We should keep in mind that Chad's aircraft could have been receiving data via Link-16 from Spy-1b radars/AEGIS (ships) and from other aircrafts like the E-2 Hawkeye. He could also and simply have been vectored to the unid contact like Fravor and the other pilots earlier that day without even being sent any data via the Link-16 Network.

"The radar could not take a lock, the b-sweep would raster around the hit, build an initial aspect vector (which never stabilized) and then would drop and continue normal RWS b-sweep. When asked, LT.______ stated that there were no jamming cues (strobe, champagne bubbles, “any normal EA indications”). It “just appeared as if the radar couldn’t hack it.” The radar couldn’t receive enough information to create a single target track file."

So Chad and the pilot were flying towards the unid radar contact, he did get a hit (radar) and as they got closer, Chad apparently managed to get an autotrack since L+S and BST are not boxed in the interface. I am no expert about EW* but at this range (< 40 nmi), this looks like we could wonder about Low Observability (i.e: stealth) if we are talking about the unid contact being an aircraft or a UAV/UCAV/UAS/Decoy. And could Low Observability be linked to some sort of EW? I have no clue.

I am trying to get more info from "Jell-O" (The Fighter Pilot Podcast) but he does not always answer me on YT.

So my question is, is there a retired fighter pilot who flew F/A-18s in here?

* Source: https://youtu.be/fBLHZwEXKeA



Cheers,
Chris

 

[TheoryQED]

You should post what Fravor said...

Here's one Fravor interview. Source: https://youtu.be/dvfRRgFHSRE?t=2019
33:40 - "The radar tape actually showed you know, the thing, as we hit it with the radar it started jam, went to jam extrapolate, and the, the aspect vector started to spin around because it didn't want to get locked up. And uh, and Chad, saw the you know, that's what he had seen when he did it, and then obviously the video and then all the radar tapes from the Princeton, there's a bunch of stuff that's missing that they can't find."

Which radar? Should we assume it was Chad's radar when it comes to the initial tracks? We should keep in mind that Chad's aircraft could have been receiving data via Link-16 from Spy-1b radars/AEGIS (ships) and from other aircrafts like the E-2 Hawkeye. He could also and simply have been vectored to the unid contact like Fravor and the other pilots earlier that day without even being sent any data via the Link-16 Network.

I might be wrong but I don't think the CEC can help the range finder find the distance to the target, so yes Chad's on-board radar.

So Chad and the pilot were flying towards the unid radar contact, he did get a hit (radar) and as they got closer, Chad apparently managed to get an autotrack since L+S and BST are not boxed in the interface. I am no expert about EA/ECM but at this range (< 40 nmi), this looks like we could wonder about Low Observability (i.e: stealth) if we are talking about the unid contact being an aircraft or a UAV/UCAV/UAS. And could Low Observability be linked to some sort of EA/ECM? I have no clue.

I am trying to get more info from "Jell-O" (The Fighter Pilot Podcast) but he does not always answer me on YT.

So my question is, is there a retired fighter pilot who flew F/A-18s in here?

Chad was the pilot. Good luck with The Fighter Pilot Podcast answer!

 

[Christophe Isbert]

Hi TheoryQED,

I forgot that Agent K posted what Fravor said:

It's pretty obvious when it happens. You go, "I'm being jammed." Jamming by something other than us playing with ourselves is technically an act of war, just so you know. So this thing jams, and what he [the WSO] does, because he sees it being jammed right away, he can castle real quick and go from that Azimuth-Altitude, he can immediately go to his targeting FLIR, so that's what he does, he castles over, he gets the targeting FLIR, and then he takes the passive track because obviously your radar's not working and not going to work. So, that's the (radar) tape that no one has seen. I have, a lot... So, when you see that, and it's jamming, that's when he gets the passive track, and that's the minute and 30 seconds that you see.

Source: Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUyGnFFilP0&feature=youtu.be&t=1877


I don't really see a technical contradiction with what Chad said, to the contrary, Fravor explains exactly why you could call that jamming since jamming is not only limited to the few jamming cues Chad listed ("strobe, champagne bubbles, “any normal EA indications”).

Chad started out by setting his radar sub-mode on RWS because he could have selected the target as the L+S target, which would have automatically generated an L+S target on the HUD (for the pilot) and on the radar interface exactly like if the radar was on STT sub-mode. This is a strategic choice since this does not alert your target that you are "locking him up" and gives you time to maneuver and obtain an optimal firing solution. Then Chad switched back and forth to STT sub-mode with no luck, which is weird since he knew "where to look", thanks to the ATFLIR pod. This is why I wonder if we are dealing with low observability, EW or a little of both?

Cheers,
Chris

 

[deirdre]

ummm… @Christophe Isbert @TheoryQED

am I missing something? what does any of this have to do with "simulating a blurry plane" ?