Buckaroo
Member
So the ISS was visible and setting 2 hrs 40 min after sunset. Sounds about right.
USS Omaha "Transmedium" Sphere Descending To the Sea
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
DavidB66
Senior Member.
I thought the 'sphere' object went down (or below the horizon) to the north west of the ship? According to various posts above, the ship itself was sailing almost due west, and the IR scope pointing either in almost the same direction or somewhat to the north of west, but not as far as due north. The ISS setting to the east of north, as shown in Stellarium, wouldn't match that. But there was some uncertainty about the azimuth data. I'd love it to be the ISS, but the direction seems to be a problem.
I also did a quick search for IR photos or film of the ISS. I did find one taken at close range from another space vehicle, but that is not hugely helpful when we want to know what it would look like from earth. I guess that in its position outside the atmosphere, any surface exposed to sunlight would get pretty hot. I found a figure of 250F or 121C. That's hot, but not jet-engine hot.
Easy Muffin
Senior Member.
Two problem I see with the ISS theory.
One is that these software apps rely on external radar tracking data to predict the satellite positions, data they get in the form of two-line elements, which are only valid for so long. Unless you manage to get hold of the TLE that was current at that specific time, the orbital pertubations, caused both by atmospheric drag and motions of the sat itself (such as for example the altitude boosts that the ISS performs regularly) become so large over time that any attempt to work back from a given TLE becomes futile. I don't know if that was done here, but if it wasn't then the ISS might as well have been on the other side of the globe at that time.
The other is that the sun had already set and was at an increasingly negative elevation as the evening progressed, which made it ever more improbable for an object in orbit to still be in sunlight as it crossed the local horizon.
One is that these software apps rely on external radar tracking data to predict the satellite positions, data they get in the form of two-line elements, which are only valid for so long. Unless you manage to get hold of the TLE that was current at that specific time, the orbital pertubations, caused both by atmospheric drag and motions of the sat itself (such as for example the altitude boosts that the ISS performs regularly) become so large over time that any attempt to work back from a given TLE becomes futile. I don't know if that was done here, but if it wasn't then the ISS might as well have been on the other side of the globe at that time.
The other is that the sun had already set and was at an increasingly negative elevation as the evening progressed, which made it ever more improbable for an object in orbit to still be in sunlight as it crossed the local horizon.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
If the figures down the left of the video screen are azimuth, then the UAP has an azimuth of over 40 degrees at the start of the video, whilst the ISS at 22.36 on July 15th 2019 reached a maximum azimuth of 20 degrees above the horizon. However I am not certain what the 0, 30, 60, etc figures down the left and along the bottom actually are...as they would imply it is an extremely wide angle, almost fish-eye, type lens.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
It was determined in this thread that the az figures are most likely decimal places based on footage from similar systems and the bottom row of pixels has been cut off possibly by a bezel and thus the figures are actually 4.0 etc.
It would help if you read the entire thread.
It would help if you read the entire thread.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
https://www.flir.com/discover/rd-science/can-thermal-imaging-see-through-fog-and-rain/
Goes into a lot of detail about different types of fog, and the like, and concludes:
Without knowing more than I know about conditions at that time, equipment used, and how the ISS reflects IR, I can't tease from that a definite answer on whether ISS could have been the object. Most I can say is that the presence of fog does not seem to absolutely rule it out.
(edit fixed two typos)
AmberRobot
Senior Member.
The Sun is significantly dimmer in IR than visible though.
these Infrared camera videos look so unusual usually because they are looking at objects that are brighter in IR than visible (like jet exhaust). They don't look how things look to the eye, which makes them harder to recognize. In addition to most of them looking saturated and exhibiting detector bloom and/or optical scattering.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
https://www.extraordinarybeliefs.com/news4/navy-filmed-spherical-ufos
A clean view. I set the map coordinates to the ship's reported position at the time (instead of San Diego) and the observer height at 15 meters. It disappears the next secondExternal Quote:
From what I can see in the video, the time on the display was 11:00 p.m. and 12 seconds when the object dips below the horizon; which is a 19 minute difference.
From what I understand, Stellarium is calculating the position of ISS now (rather then reporting a time calculated in July 2019). The ISS is in low Earth orbit, and is subject to atmospheric drag. There are reboosts about once a month to correct for this. So, there's ample room for a 19 minute error.
However, looking at the edited video again, the object was near the horizon several minutes before, so I don't think it can be ISS.
The looks like a distant plane that dips below the horizon. The perception that the loss in apparent altitude is due to an actual loss in altitude is understandable, but I think it's more likely due to perspective as it flies farther away.
Last edited:
Cassi O
Active Member
I plugged in these archival TLE from July 2019 in to Starry Night Pro:
1 25544U 98067A 19195.10532243 .00000267 00000-0 12389-4 0 9997
2 25544 51.6427 227.7181 0007035 136.9706 255.5990 15.50975550179433
The ISS set at 10:43 pm and was long gone by 11 pm.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Did you mean to post this in the RADAR video thread?
Cassi O
Active Member
How do we know that this text wasn't fabricated either before or after the still photo was leaked? (The photo wasn't officially released or confirmed by the UAPTF.) What is CCSG-9?
It's still obvious to me, that what was recorded is the thermal image of an aircraft engine at some unknown altitude and distance passing below the horizon, it did not 'splash down'. All the talk about the object being "Transmedium" is nothing more than rumor and hearsay.
Last edited:
chudley_wetlegs
New Member
At the end the object faded when it met a dark water patch, got lost in the video compression when the light water came back, faded in briefly because it actually was there still - the video compression is hiding it behind pixels similar to the sky. The tracking box briefly tracks a dark patch in the ocean then becomes unboxed when the dark fades into the light ocean.
Hey, what about a Google Loon balloon? Flight HBAL621 passed right by there according to the data from this site. That said the landing date seems a few days too early. https://stratocat.com.ar/fichas-e/2019/RVR-20190319a.htm
map: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/project-loon-hbal621_346287#5/32.806/-109.775
some additional tracking data: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/HBAL621
"the entire structure was covered by radar reflective material, in each corner of the solar panels there was an omnidirectional white strobe light with a range of 5 nautical miles that flashed once per second" --> certainly possible its balloon could look like the USS Omaha footage, and the equipment pod could even look like that triangular flashing footage too, when viewed from the surface?
map: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/project-loon-hbal621_346287#5/32.806/-109.775
some additional tracking data: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/HBAL621
"the entire structure was covered by radar reflective material, in each corner of the solar panels there was an omnidirectional white strobe light with a range of 5 nautical miles that flashed once per second" --> certainly possible its balloon could look like the USS Omaha footage, and the equipment pod could even look like that triangular flashing footage too, when viewed from the surface?
Last edited:
Please try to restrict posts to actual analysis here. If you make a claim about something, then back it up with references or actual numbers.
And if you are making some claim about something visual, then include an annotated screenshot showing what you mean.
And if you are making some claim about something visual, then include an annotated screenshot showing what you mean.
Last edited:
Some contrast enhancements seem to show the object somewhat below the horizon, in front of a rising wave. The sea at the horizon is pretty rough, probably because the IR camera is zoomed in heavily.
What you see is a black shape that appears in front of the horizon, however base on how it vanishes I think it's a glare from a much smaller object that goes behind the horizon.
Is this white shape "somewhat below the horizon"?
See here for a full demonstration:
Source: https://youtu.be/WAfiJqUHDg0?t=123
Hi Mick, I agree that it's a glare of a smaller object but wouldn't this glare fade out in the same way if the object goes beneath the water surface instead of the horizon? In other words, the way it disappears only tells that it's a glare, not whether it disappears behind the horizon or beneath the ocean surface.
If you look out over the ocean, a lot of objects seem to be at or near the horizon. Like for instance in this picture:
If you look out over the ocean, a lot of objects seem to be at or near the horizon. Like for instance in this picture:
But the claim is made that it goes underwater. It seems to be a heat source, like a jet engine. Going very slowly behind the horizon seems much more plausible than something hot dipping underwater and then briefly re-emerging.
Ravi
Senior Member.
If I may..
The Laser Range Finder had no return of the "object", which means it must be farther away than the maximum range of the laser system, which is 30km (links are in this thread). This means it must have been much farther than the visible range to the horizon from the boat, which was ±6km I believe, making it more plausible it was a plane and not an object closer than 6km.
I guess extra radar data from the object would come in handy.
This isn't necessarily true. LRFs tend to be designed for measuring the distance to large static or slow moving objects, aiming them at a small moving target and getting an effective return pulse is not easy. They also depend on the reflectivity and physical shape of the object they are directed at. It could have been that they just didn't get a reading - for any number of reasons. I dont think its right to say it must have been beyond the horizon for this reason (although I think it probably was).
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
I looked into laser range finders in the contact of the ATLFLIR, they only seem to be used in A/G mode for ground targeting, i.e. they only use to get a measure of straight line to ground, for A/A mode RADAR tracks provide ranging. So yeah it's likely that even if it were close they wouldn't use it or it wouldn't be capable of providing a range to a small object.
Ravi
Senior Member.
Agreed, that is a true possibility.
gtoffo
Active Member
Previous comment was deleted due to "claims without reference"......OK......... how about this?
Corbell claims here for the IR video: https://www.extraordinarybeliefs.com/news4/navy-filmed-spherical-ufos
While he claims for the radar video: https://www.extraordinarybeliefs.com/news4/navy-ufo-radar-data
So those would be concurrent events observed with different sensors according to him. The claim is that while OMAHA was tracking the objects on radar they were also using their IR cameras to ID the objects.
Can we confirm the time stamps from the videos? This seems rather crucial.
Corbell claims here for the IR video: https://www.extraordinarybeliefs.com/news4/navy-filmed-spherical-ufos
While he claims for the radar video: https://www.extraordinarybeliefs.com/news4/navy-ufo-radar-data
So those would be concurrent events observed with different sensors according to him. The claim is that while OMAHA was tracking the objects on radar they were also using their IR cameras to ID the objects.
Can we confirm the time stamps from the videos? This seems rather crucial.
gtoffo
Active Member
Also LRF works by bouncing light onto the object and measuring the return of that light based on the time of flight principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_rangefinder
If you point a light into another light you won't be able to see any return. Those object were emitting IR radiation and were "self-illuminated" (so also visible light) according to Corbell https://www.extraordinarybeliefs.com/news4/navy-ufo-radar-data
For example I don't think a LRF would work if you pointed it at a flare or at an engine exhaust or any bright light source probably. We can try this with a simple golfing laser range finder
The Wiki article above also mentions (although there is no source):
Last edited:
According to post #87, the LRF has a maximum range of 20 km. This may be less with many water droplets or water vapor in the air which tend to scatter the laser beam. According to post #107, the distance to the horizon was 17 km. So it is possible the LRF could not get a return at that distance.
I wonder if you can state with certainty it was "something hot". I don't think you can draw any conclusion about its temperature just because it's black, since some of the patches of the ocean are almost as black as the object.
The astronaut capsules returning from space and landing in the ocean also show the 'splash, then re-emerge' behaviour we see in the video, so that does not sound implausible to me either. Who knows, maybe it was one of those?
Just by looking at the colors on the display you can't say much about the temperature of an object.
If you can have access to the raw values of the pixels (I am not referring to the values from a mpeg video, but current or voltage values actually registered by each pixel), and if you know the calibration parameters, you could have the irradiation produced from the object on the camera. From there, you can then make some calculations, assuming a few things, to decide whether you are seeing the emission of a black body with certain temperature, or a reflection of the sun (or any other light source) on the object
I guess experience allows to have an educated guess for each case.
Tim Printy
Member
Just as a point on the second comment. During northern summer, when the ISS takes a northern track, it is usually visible in the middle of the night. I have seen it make passes at 1 and 2 AM. Other satellites are also visible when they make passes that are far enough north.
Also, you can retrieve historical TLEs for the ISS from various websites so it is not hard to get a very close approximation of the ISS path on the date in question.
Ravi
Senior Member.
I think the black blob is over exposure, so getting a temperature estimate, even the most conservative, is impossible. It is not surprising there is no "colour bar" on the screen: these cameras on these planes are not used to determine the temperature, just for reconnaissance purposes.
PS, these sensors generally are (still) 8 bits, so you have 255 grey levels, which is really not a lot.
The website in-the-sky.org offers historical real-time satellite passes from any location from 2018. But I think this has already been checked and the ISS was at around 30mins earlier.
That being said, can we confirm what date & time this was at and the weather conditions at the time? Does that support a flare drifting over the horizon...?
gtoffo
Active Member
I don't understand why we are talking about the ISS!? Has the post above been proven to be mistaken?
We have exact ship position and azimuth. How can the ISS move perpendicular to the horizon?! The ISS is a football field sized lab in low earth orbit remember? :-D It also moves fast. It orbits in 90 minutes around the earth at 7.66 km/s. And it doesn't move up and down when crossing the horizon. It just goes one way.
Also the ISS doesn't emit so much IR radiation unless it is directly reflecting the sun. Which usually happens for brief moments and varies in intensity greatly (like a long flash).
Can't we just stick to analysing the known movements in the video? We have so much data we can look at (such as the great post by Festivus). Let's stick to the data rather than try and fit explanations to the data.
We are wasting time here.
P.s. if you've never seen the ISS over head (look at the night sky more! You are missing out) here is how it looks for reference:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRqHJ7GILTI
Last edited:
The reason I think it is hot is because it shrinks when it seems to go behind the horizon. This suggests it's a glare, larger than the (hot) object. If it were simply a warmish sphere then we would be seeing the actual shape and it would get progressively obscured rather than shrinking, as demonstrated by Pewdiepie.
Source: https://youtu.be/3C5XALaTanA?t=232
An object heated by air friction will also cause IR glare, like for instance the SpaceX capsule in this picture:
The glare does not have to be much bigger than the object.
If you look at its splashdown, you first see the bottom disappearing but then the splashing water obscures the whole object:
I guess that splashing water will also obscure the object in IR.
Now, if I look at how the object in the Navy video disappears, it may behave similar to the SpaceX capsule:
First the bottom touches the water surface:
Then some of the bottom sinks below the surface while water starts splashing up:
After that, the splashing water obscures the whole object:
Note how the SpaceX capsule appears to be at the horizon as well.
The glare does not have to be much bigger than the object.
If you look at its splashdown, you first see the bottom disappearing but then the splashing water obscures the whole object:
I guess that splashing water will also obscure the object in IR.
Now, if I look at how the object in the Navy video disappears, it may behave similar to the SpaceX capsule:
First the bottom touches the water surface:
Then some of the bottom sinks below the surface while water starts splashing up:
After that, the splashing water obscures the whole object:
Note how the SpaceX capsule appears to be at the horizon as well.
Last edited:
gtoffo
Active Member
I think everyone agrees this is IR glare. That is pretty evident (we can't be certain though). The question is "What is it"?
It disappears and reappears as it reaches the horizon/water.
The only options are:
- it's moving up and down slighly so it reemerges (like a capsule splashing back up and then sinking)
- it's been partly obscured by waves (therefore it is at short range or waves would not be a factor)
- it is actually "turning on and off"
I can't think of any other options.
All of those options exclude stuff like the ISS or other astronomical objects that do not fit the observations.
It disappears and reappears as it reaches the horizon/water.
The only options are:
- it's moving up and down slighly so it reemerges (like a capsule splashing back up and then sinking)
- it's been partly obscured by waves (therefore it is at short range or waves would not be a factor)
- it is actually "turning on and off"
I can't think of any other options.
All of those options exclude stuff like the ISS or other astronomical objects that do not fit the observations.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
If you've ever looked out to sea with a telescope/telephoto lens, the horizon shows "swell" or wave motion which can obscure and then reveal things near the horizon periodically.
It's entirely possible the object goes beyond the horizon reducing the glare as then a trough rolls through, revealing more of the glare before the object goes too far over the horizon to be revealed again.
It's entirely possible the object goes beyond the horizon reducing the glare as then a trough rolls through, revealing more of the glare before the object goes too far over the horizon to be revealed again.
Yes, it is.
But it's also possible that an object splashes down at the horizon, like you see happening in the SpaceX pictures above.
The only difference between these hypotheses is that a splashing object is entirely consistent with the audio of the video ("it splashed" "mark bearing and range"). Aren't we supposed to investigate that claim?
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
If it were hot and entered the ocean i.e. "splashed" then you would expect it to get very cold quickly and not come back.
We see it fade and then come back and then fade again, like the glare is being obscured as Mick demonstrated with his light/book demo.
Saying it splashed could just be a mistaken observation based on just seeing the FLIR footage 1st time in real time.
Like a lot of the videos the initial unusual behaviour is presumably why they were interesting and "initially unidentified" the 1st place, Go Fast looks like it goes fast, but it doesn't. We have the luxury of being able to replay it numerous times and test theories.
We see it fade and then come back and then fade again, like the glare is being obscured as Mick demonstrated with his light/book demo.
Saying it splashed could just be a mistaken observation based on just seeing the FLIR footage 1st time in real time.
Like a lot of the videos the initial unusual behaviour is presumably why they were interesting and "initially unidentified" the 1st place, Go Fast looks like it goes fast, but it doesn't. We have the luxury of being able to replay it numerous times and test theories.
Similar threads
