Missed an opportunity to say, "Upon reflection, I recalled I made this video..."
Syria UAP 2021- Apparent Instantaneous Acceleration
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Missed an opportunity to say, "Upon reflection, I recalled I made this video..."
Nemon
Senior Member.
This case is obviously this one now released with the second batch as
I wonder how it's redacted now though it's been already published by Corbell unredacted.
DOW-UAP-PR051
https://www.war.gov/UFO/#DOW-UAP-PR051-Syrian-UAP-instant-accelerationI wonder how it's redacted now though it's been already published by Corbell unredacted.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Interesting how the clouds are flowing through the frame constantly from right to left, until right when the "UFO" zips out of frame, when they slow right down. Almost as if the camera is following the UFO, then stops doing that so the UFO exits the right of the screen.
This is all consistent with the object flying along at a constant rate of speed (or a constant apparent speed produced by a moving camera and parallax for an essentially stationary object like a balloon). There is no observable evidence of acceleration in either case, instantaneous or otherwise!
Yet somebody in DoD is releasing this as an object flying in an anomalous fashion. This raises some ominous and unavoidable questions about the competence of some number of folks at DoD -- hopefully the number is small, and limited to either folks who Want To Believe or who Want To Mollify Congressional Members Who Want To Believe.
This is all consistent with the object flying along at a constant rate of speed (or a constant apparent speed produced by a moving camera and parallax for an essentially stationary object like a balloon). There is no observable evidence of acceleration in either case, instantaneous or otherwise!
Yet somebody in DoD is releasing this as an object flying in an anomalous fashion. This raises some ominous and unavoidable questions about the competence of some number of folks at DoD -- hopefully the number is small, and limited to either folks who Want To Believe or who Want To Mollify Congressional Members Who Want To Believe.
Last edited:
The segment in question
The video quality is quite a bit better than Corbell releases, you can actually see the interlacing artifacts, so it's much closer to the original, and you can see:
The video quality is quite a bit better than Corbell releases, you can actually see the interlacing artifacts, so it's much closer to the original, and you can see:
Which is also what the Sitrec analysis shows.
Nemon
Senior Member.
Do you think that this 'official' version has not been filmed off a monitor?
I think it's the original footage, just reencoded, so not filmed off a monitor. The various contrast issues are problems with the original IR camera.
It (visually) traverses hald the most zoomed-in screen in 6 frames, so 12 frames for, let's call it an "1a" screen . leaving at 8562
30 frames later, without the view moving much, the view widens to 2a
70 frames after that it zooms out another 2a to 4a, over those 70 frames it pans maybe 1.5 of the 2a screen, or 3 1a screens
at 8841, we widen to 8a
at 8907, we go to what looks like 6x that, so 48a
8907-8562 = 345 frames, so it would have traversed 345/12, or about 28 1a screens, which is more than half of the wide 48a screen, so it would seems like it would be off screen.
Some perhaps more interesting few seconds, are from frames 5784 (3:11.10) to 7352 (4:05.07), nearly a minute of video missing from Corbell's leak, in which the object appears to turn around, in much the same way as the windmill object does. The OSD here would, I strongly suspect, show that it matches the camera platform (the drone) turning around, and hence showing that the motion was parallax. I wonder if Corbell had this segment, and why it was not included in the release.
Maury Markowitz
Active Member
Unless I am mistaken, this was not collected because it was flying in an anomalous fashion, but because someone sent it to the collection office. They wouldn't analyze, they would just file it. Someone else will analyze, maybe, if they consider it worthwhile.
For example, consider the effort to collect phone calls. They just file every one that hits some keywords. Only later, if someone deems it interesting, does anyone go in and look.
So my feeling is that the people in question were doing exactly what they were hired to do, file it.
That appear to only happen in that intial clip, the full video at the end has the missing frame
Frame 635 (same as 634)
Frame 8553, different from. 8552, where 8552 = 634 and 635
This implication is that you shouldn't use the "original clip excerpt", as it loses data.
There are also a few pixel differences. Given the missing frames in the excerpt, then the "full original clip" is likely the closest to the actual original.
Last edited:
It has that specific frame, which is good to know, but there are still duplicate frames in the full video at the end as well. 8559=8560, 8525=8526. I'm wondering if this means the video still suffers from some frame rate conversion issues, or something else and whether that might've created other artifacts in the frames that aren't duplicates as well.
Ravi
Senior Member.
Isn't this also what you expect when the lock is lost, the background changes direction.
The lock was already lost (the object is not boxed). We are seeing a transition from RPOINT (attempting to hold a lost lock) to RATE-G (manual tracking). This appears to be something the operator did as the object was about to drift off-screen. They likely did not anticipate the parallax component, so they lost it.
@AverageChris has been researching this, and posted in the thread. I believe he posted on X about talking to an MQ-9 operator. Chris?
That reminds me of something I've been meaning to ask:
Why exactly does Corbell do this "Recording-a-UAP-video-like-a-kid-from-the-early-2000s-taking-a-physical-picture-of-a-notable-moment-in-the-video-game-they-are-playing-on-the-CRT-TV" thing?
Has this been explained and I just missed it?
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
That's how the "leaks" are giving to him. Presumably, the person providing the leak is concerned that if they actually downloaded the file from a government server, that might be traceable. And possibly illegal? So, they make a recording of whatever mysterious video they've seen with their likely personal phone and "smuggle" the file out that way.
Whether downloading is possible, traceable or illegal, I don't know. Seems like with the size of the federal government and all it's inner workings, I wouldn't be surprised if someone could download terabytes of stuff and nobody noticed, but I guess someone with actual government experience would have to weigh in.
There is also the possibility that the recorded screen trope gives the leaks a found footage vibe. Some secret that was recorded clandestinely in a secret government vault or SCIF by a courageous patriot fighting to get the truth out. Risking his career and life to provide Corbell with the evidence the public needs to see, the only way he can.
Personally, I think it's a combination of the 2. The leakers are recorded screens to avoid being found out, but the furtive nature of these screen recordings makes them more compelling as real secrets which also happens to be more entertaining.
As I understand it, to limit viruses from getting in and prevent protected data from getting out, the USB and other media ports on military and intelligence computer systems are apparently often disabled and facilities otherwise ban carrying thumbdrives and other portable media, leaving recording images from display screens with cell phones as the default method for leaking videos.
Here's the article he wrote in which he spoke to a "retired USAF MQ-1/MQ-9 Sensor Operator".
Source: https://medium.com/@paranormalchris615/2021-syria-uap-video-proof-of-alien-technology-or-something-prosaic-8abe9cecac87
There's some evidence for it being the software's coast timer expiring.
The tracking gate first disappears on frame 578 at 00:19:08. Then you see the first hint that the zip off is starting or about to start on frame 636 at 00:21:06. That's at most two frames off of exactly 2 seconds. The time difference is the same in the full video later, frame 8496 at 04:43:06 - frame 8554 at 04:45:04.
If the software started the timer a frame earlier than what is displayed and if frame 636 is a compression artifact then you have exactly 2 seconds, a round number that someone might've programmed. Of course there's still a 1/30 chance of the operator randomly happening to switch modes right at that time.
I wonder if the same or some other drone operators could tell us whether some specific drone that might've taken this video has a coast mode timeout of exactly 2 seconds ? You can probably read it off some of the released reaper videos so it might not be classified ?
Speaking of missing frames, there's a segment of the video at 1:22, titled "5% Speed". It actually seems more like 10% speed, but it also seems to have all the frames (obviously duplicated). I think THIS is the real best footage of the zip-off. I'll extract the unique frames...
Okay, here's the unique frames from the 5% segment (I added a "unique frames only" option to Sitrec specifically for cases like this - well, specifically for THIS case, but I imagine there will be other usages).
Then there's longer segments derived from the 50% and 25% clips.
This is likely the best quality we will get. The 5% on will in theroy have the best pixels, but the 50% one should have the most frames. 25% somewhere in the middle. None of them should be missinge frames, they are just different lengths.
Similar threads
