FatPhil
Active Member
Wow, I totally misread the original. So much so that I didn't even recognise it on rereading. Need more coffee.
USS Omaha UFO / UAP Radar Video
- Thread starter Alphadunk
- Start date
Wow, I totally misread the original. So much so that I didn't even recognise it on rereading. Need more coffee.
gtoffo
Active Member
Agree this is also what I would expect.
I think you can also see the USS Omaha Vector starting from the center (which also seems to be curved in certain moments (maybe the ship was maneuvering?).
However: the movements of the contacts do not match the direction lines. Why is that? They seem to be erratically jumping around instead of following the predicted direction lines.
Also those direction lines seem extremely long compared to the USS Omaha's vector. Is that consistent with a reported top speed for the Omaha of 40+ knots? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Omaha_(LCS-12)
I think we should try to gather as much data from the screen as we can by analysing all the symbology and movements as much as we can.
jarlrmai
Senior Member
At regular intervals throughout the the video this panel changes:
from
To
and then back again
In the reference screenshot it shows date/time
What does it say "Running in <something> mode?"
Why would the time indicator be flashing between a mode and the time?
Also in this frame you can just about read the time 16 Jul 2019 04 42 XX UTC? Seems consistent with the time match from the Swan Ace logs, at least there's no contradictory number I can see.
from
To
and then back again
In the reference screenshot it shows date/time
What does it say "Running in <something> mode?"
Why would the time indicator be flashing between a mode and the time?
Also in this frame you can just about read the time 16 Jul 2019 04 42 XX UTC? Seems consistent with the time match from the Swan Ace logs, at least there's no contradictory number I can see.
Last edited:
jackfrostvc
Active Member
JFDee
Senior Member.
I think most of the large ships worldwide are registered to Panama, Liberia or the Bahamas. That doesn't say much about the company using them or the area in which they travel. It's mainly for evading taxes and regulations.
I noticed that sometimes the blips on the radar screen do not follow their predicted velocity vector but instead move perpendicularly
Doppler Radar
Is there any possibility that the radar used is a Doppler radar ? This type of radar uses the Doppler effect to analyse the velocity data of an object. It does this by bouncing a microwave signal off the desired target and analyzing how the object's motion has altered the frequency of the returned signal. It automatically eliminates return signals from weather, terrain, and countermeasures like chaff. It is also very effective against low-flying aircraft to eliminate the ground clutter, which always has zero speed/shift. It makes good sense to have it on a warship.
A countermeasure to this, used by low-flying planes (maybe drones) is to turn perpendicular to the hostile radar to nullify the Doppler frequency. This usually breaks the lock and drives the radar off by hiding against the ground noise. I think we observe both perpendicular travel and sudden disappearance in the video. [ Corbell attempts to explain it by saying that the 'UFOS' are flying off very high or into the water. I think Doppler countermeasures offer another, more realistic hypothesis].
Doppler Radar
Is there any possibility that the radar used is a Doppler radar ? This type of radar uses the Doppler effect to analyse the velocity data of an object. It does this by bouncing a microwave signal off the desired target and analyzing how the object's motion has altered the frequency of the returned signal. It automatically eliminates return signals from weather, terrain, and countermeasures like chaff. It is also very effective against low-flying aircraft to eliminate the ground clutter, which always has zero speed/shift. It makes good sense to have it on a warship.
A countermeasure to this, used by low-flying planes (maybe drones) is to turn perpendicular to the hostile radar to nullify the Doppler frequency. This usually breaks the lock and drives the radar off by hiding against the ground noise. I think we observe both perpendicular travel and sudden disappearance in the video. [ Corbell attempts to explain it by saying that the 'UFOS' are flying off very high or into the water. I think Doppler countermeasures offer another, more realistic hypothesis].
I think the name of the owner or company of the Ship can be purchased. I'm not sure about the price though
Can be found for free on Wikipedia! The ship is/seems to be operated by Mitsui O.S.K Lines.
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsui_O.S.K._Lines
Wow ! Thanks
JFDee
Senior Member.
Makes sense. China car exports likely don't match those from Japan yet. I bet the port preceding Canada was in Japan.
It's still interesting why it slowed down all of a sudden on the evening of July 15.
I'm not very well versed on US Navy procedure. This part of the transcript confuses me:
:01 “OOD if you can write a general LAT/LONG of where we’re at.”
...
:05 “Yes Sir.”
:06 “And then… the number of contacts you’ve got. Get the course and speed meters off 'em.”
:09 “Copy.”
:10 “You know what I mean? In relative position to us. And bearings. Might be helpful too.”
This exchange is between the OOD (Officer of the Deck) and someone else, who is directing them. Who would have the ability to task the OOD like this?
:01 “OOD if you can write a general LAT/LONG of where we’re at.”
...
:05 “Yes Sir.”
:06 “And then… the number of contacts you’ve got. Get the course and speed meters off 'em.”
:09 “Copy.”
:10 “You know what I mean? In relative position to us. And bearings. Might be helpful too.”
This exchange is between the OOD (Officer of the Deck) and someone else, who is directing them. Who would have the ability to task the OOD like this?
A HYPOTHESIS ON THE USS OMAHA RADAR DATA
I feel that at present, the available evidence points to the following hypothesis-
While traveling at a routine speed, the USS Omaha stumbled into the activity of a certain number of unidentified low-flying drones(very,very low chance of being manned aitcraft)close to San Clemente Island, which were recorded on the ships Doppler radar. These drones are likely to have two possible sources.
A) Testing from San Clemente Island
B) Released from a nearby ship, submarine or (possibly unmanned)plane.*
At some point of time, probably around 9 pm local time, the USS Omaha turned off its AIS transistor to conceal its location, and went to the co-ordinates we see in the video in order to investigate. At this time, the drones exhibitited common countermeasures against Doppler Radar by flying perpendicular. This also has the desired effectof making the radar lose lock.The drones allegedly reached speeds of upto 250 kmph (which is quite normal for military drones) possibly helped by strong winds.
In the early hours of the morning, probably after the drones had departed, the Omaha turned on its AIS transistor again, indicating that she felt that the threat had passed. For the next few hours, it maneuvered around the area, possibly searching for debris.
‐----------------–------------------------------------
*
It is possible that the plane in the Bokeh video, which was reportedly unidentified and flew at a relatively low height of 737m, dropped off the drones.
Ok pals, this is my current hypothesis. I would greatly appreciate if anyone has any data that challenges the above hypothesis
I feel that at present, the available evidence points to the following hypothesis-
While traveling at a routine speed, the USS Omaha stumbled into the activity of a certain number of unidentified low-flying drones(very,very low chance of being manned aitcraft)close to San Clemente Island, which were recorded on the ships Doppler radar. These drones are likely to have two possible sources.
A) Testing from San Clemente Island
B) Released from a nearby ship, submarine or (possibly unmanned)plane.*
At some point of time, probably around 9 pm local time, the USS Omaha turned off its AIS transistor to conceal its location, and went to the co-ordinates we see in the video in order to investigate. At this time, the drones exhibitited common countermeasures against Doppler Radar by flying perpendicular. This also has the desired effectof making the radar lose lock.The drones allegedly reached speeds of upto 250 kmph (which is quite normal for military drones) possibly helped by strong winds.
In the early hours of the morning, probably after the drones had departed, the Omaha turned on its AIS transistor again, indicating that she felt that the threat had passed. For the next few hours, it maneuvered around the area, possibly searching for debris.
‐----------------–------------------------------------
*
It is possible that the plane in the Bokeh video, which was reportedly unidentified and flew at a relatively low height of 737m, dropped off the drones.
Ok pals, this is my current hypothesis. I would greatly appreciate if anyone has any data that challenges the above hypothesis
gtoffo
Active Member
Not sure what you mean by this.
The contacts are in plain sight and going in all directions relative to the ship. They aren't "hiding" or flying perpendicular.
Of note:
- at around 10 seconds two contacts disappear close to the SWAN ACE. Could they be landing for recovery?
- according to the tracks reported in the thread the SWAN ACE slowed down at some point before the incident. Was it launching the drones?
Of course this could be just a coincidence. And what happened to the other contacts? They were just abandoned into the sea and sank?
In the last part of the video the SWAN ACE is no longer in view. How far was the OMAHA at that point from the SWAN ACE?
Do we know if the video we have is from the same event? Do the dates match? The IR image doesn't look like a normal drone would.
I think we need to stick to the data we have (further analysis of the video) before trying to speculate on what is going on here. There is still more data we can uncover.
Most likely the plane was at 30k+ feet. But some sources claimed that eyewitnesses said the plane was flying low. I don't trust unverified eyewitness data, but I thought I'd throw it in for posterity.
I'll see what I can do!
1:
I was able to find some information that naval radar incorporates Doppler radar.
From https://www.militaryaerospace.com/sensors/article/14174156/shipboard-radar-missiledefense
Here is where in the Wikipedia article that statement is drawn from.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_radar
2:
Is there evidence for drone testing off San Clemente island? The Drive article on the July Drone sightings pointed out the investigation into them went quite high up the chain of command, to people who potentially would have knowledge on San Clemente drone testing.
From https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...us-drones-off-california-over-numerous-nights
3:
The maneuvering of the Omaha happens before the video was taken, not after.
The maneuvering is before the gap in AIS data begins.Interestingly, the sharp turn to starboard that begins the period of maneuvering happens at about 5:00 AM local time on July 14:
I hope that is helpful to your hypothesis!
Yeah...there's still a lot of analysis left to be done. At certain points, the contacts seem to jerk 90° to the predicted velocity vector, which is usually intended to throw off the Doppler radar lock. This also effectively hides the contact against the ground noise, as it becomes 0 shift. That maybe the reason they disappeared at 10 second mark.
1) I also had a suspicion that the Swan Ace is involved somehow , maybe as a takeoff/landing base, but I did not want to make any claims without evidence. I think a lot of analysis has to be done before we can say anything on its role.
2) I think the Swan Ace slowed down but did not stop, right ? At that time, USS Omaha was possibly moving in the opposite direction, with the AIS transistor off. So Swan Ace could have moved out of range.
3) I have no info on how the contacts ended. All we know is that at some point, USS Omaha felt it safe to turn on her AIS transistor again
4) I don't think much analysis has been done yet as to whether the radar data corroborated with previous videos. Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but the IR video was hypothesized to be a IR glare, right ?
Thank you so much for the interaction !
T
Thank you !
3. Wasn't the video taken at around 9 pm local time ? I
Edit:- I got the dates mixed up, i think.
If I may ask, when did the Omaha turn on the AIS transmitter again ? Also, then the time scale would be (i) Omaha detects unidentified drone activity at 0500 am local time and (ii)investigates for some time. At some point, it deems it necessary to (iii)switch off its AIS transmitter and maneuvers to the point where we see the video. (iv)Later, it deems it safe to turn on AIS again
Edit:- I got the dates mixed up, i think.
If I may ask, when did the Omaha turn on the AIS transmitter again ? Also, then the time scale would be (i) Omaha detects unidentified drone activity at 0500 am local time and (ii)investigates for some time. At some point, it deems it necessary to (iii)switch off its AIS transmitter and maneuvers to the point where we see the video. (iv)Later, it deems it safe to turn on AIS again
Last edited:
JFDee
Senior Member.
Coming back to the Swan Ace and the sudden slow-down. Here is the track from the respective timespan, in 2-minute resolution from the open AIS data. However, this data places the slow-down around 17h / 5pm.
I wrote a quick script that filters for a ship's name and creates a KML track or a series of points from the positions.
There was obviously a veritable evasion maneuvre going on at around 5 pm local time on July 15.
I wonder if there is a record somewhere about this incident.
Track overview:
Track detail:
Track points with timestamps:
I wrote a quick script that filters for a ship's name and creates a KML track or a series of points from the positions.
There was obviously a veritable evasion maneuvre going on at around 5 pm local time on July 15.
I wonder if there is a record somewhere about this incident.
Track overview:
Track detail:
Track points with timestamps:
Could it be a course correction to avoid (or "evade", I suppose) the large terrain feature on the map there? I noticed that the Omaha seems to make similar moves around undersea terrain in the screenshot posted here:There was obviously a veritable evasion maneuvre going on at around 5 pm local time on July 15.
...
Track detail:
Track points with timestamps:
Unfortunately, I was not able to find any info on whether drones can exhibit such flight patterns as i have posited. Since my knowledge on drones is limited, would anyone who has a better knowledge of the subject please confirm whether it is possible for a drone to fly perpendicularly in order to unlock radar. To me it seems quite doable, even autonomously.
JFDee
Senior Member.
A terrain feature would be well known and would be factored in the course to avoid it without slowing down.
I think there was a moving obstacle or some other incident.
It could be (a) a normal course correction
(b) possibly, the Swan Ace also detected the drone(s) on its radar and avoided it(them)
(c) it could have detected the USS Omaha via radar, which was possibly investigating the area with AIS turned off
Also, does anyone know a resource where i can check weather conditions and wind speed at a particular lat/lon on a given date ?
Thanks
JFDee
Senior Member.
For completeness' sake, here are the ships in the area from the AIS data, at around July 16, 04:40h UTC, the time that @Heavytread determined:
Jim Galasyn
New Member
I totally believe that atmospheric plasmas and charged dust clouds account for most "real" UFO sightings but in this event, I think the "drone swarm" theory is the more likely explanation.
Glare is one hypothesis still on the table but there is no clear consensus on what the video shows. Quite a few things could explain what we see in the video but there just isn't enough data to make a solid case for any explanation IMO.
I agree with you that if this was an exercise of some sort it would never have leaked. Recording a radar screen inside the CIC/ICC during a live exercise and then leaking it to the media would be grounds for court martial and it would be trivial to figure out who was running the radar at the time and who recorded it. On one hand it's hard to believe Gough's assertion this leak is unauthorized because of the immense risk involved in recording such a video. On the other hand it's hard to believe the Navy would purposefully leak a video showing live radar operations as that would presumably break OPSEC.
Placing the USS Omaha to the south east of Swan Ace would make the nearest naval ship (with AIS data available at the time) the USS John Finn. There may be other naval ships unseen through an analysis of the AIS data.For completeness' sake, here are the ships in the area from the AIS data, at around July 16, 04:40h UTC, the time that @Heavytread determined:
It's all very confusing....I find it hard to believe that the US Navy allowed someone to even take cellphone footage of a 2019 radar unit
JMartJr
Senior Member
I begin to find it hard to believe that there would be a sudden rash of unauthorized leaks on UAP/UFO incidents, all from the Navy and most from the same training/testing range. "Once is happenstance, twice is concidence, three times is enemy action," as the saying goes. We now have six leaked videos, all from the Navy, all but two from the range(s) off San Diego. Plus various eyewitness or purported eyewitness accounts not coming through official military channels.
I have nothing that is non-speculative to add to WHY that might be, and I don't know if there is anything there subject to analysis to warrant its own thread. (If anybody thinks there is anything there worth analyzing beyond guesses ad speculation, maybe start a thread?) But as each of these individual incidents is analyzed, it is probably worth keeping in mind that multiple leaks over a period of time on the same topic coming from only one service branch may may have some significance, and the liklihood of that would go up with each subsequent leak.
Edited to mention the "Batman Balloon" photos, which I forgot to mention. Also from Navy plane(s).
Last edited:
DavidB66
Active Member
Has it been established whether the radar (in this configuration) is only detecting low-level objects (surface or near-surface), and if so what is the upper height it would register? It was suggested at #50 that the object seen at about 310 degrees might be showing as 'friendly air', but in Mick's cleaned-up version at #28 the symbol seems to mark just another 'surface' object.
I think the question is important, because during the brief video some objects suddenly appear or disappear, or at least move through long distances in between frames. This leads Corbell to claim that they are doing extraordinary things. I wondered if the different 'clips' in the video had been taken at widely different times, which would allow time for objects to move horizontally in and out of shot, but #93 [edited: previously said #97 in error] seems to show that they all fall within a period of only a few minutes. [Added: #93 doesn't estimate the time of the final clip since the Swan Ace ship which formed a key reference point had disappeared from the screen. This is important, as it is the final clip which suddenly shows a large number of 'UAPs'. Moreover, the disappearance of the Swan Ace, after moving very little during the previous clips, suggests that there was a larger time interval before the final clip. It is also a counterexample to any assumption that in the video 'sudden disappearance' equates to 'shoots off into space', since nobody will suppose that this happened to the Swan Ace!) The sudden changes are difficult to explain, unless the objects are simply moving into or out of the vertical range of the radar. Drones can rise or drop through (say) 50 feet pretty quickly, so if the radar is confined to the near-surface level the movements would be less of a problem.
I think the question is important, because during the brief video some objects suddenly appear or disappear, or at least move through long distances in between frames. This leads Corbell to claim that they are doing extraordinary things. I wondered if the different 'clips' in the video had been taken at widely different times, which would allow time for objects to move horizontally in and out of shot, but #93 [edited: previously said #97 in error] seems to show that they all fall within a period of only a few minutes. [Added: #93 doesn't estimate the time of the final clip since the Swan Ace ship which formed a key reference point had disappeared from the screen. This is important, as it is the final clip which suddenly shows a large number of 'UAPs'. Moreover, the disappearance of the Swan Ace, after moving very little during the previous clips, suggests that there was a larger time interval before the final clip. It is also a counterexample to any assumption that in the video 'sudden disappearance' equates to 'shoots off into space', since nobody will suppose that this happened to the Swan Ace!) The sudden changes are difficult to explain, unless the objects are simply moving into or out of the vertical range of the radar. Drones can rise or drop through (say) 50 feet pretty quickly, so if the radar is confined to the near-surface level the movements would be less of a problem.
Last edited:
Same. Hopefully we're not getting too off-topic here, feel free to delete if so, but I think this conversation is worth having in the broader context of these "leaks" and the legalities involved in both the recording of the videos and the dissemination of them to the media.
Recording/Phone Use
I think most here would agree both videos were recorded with a cell phone. This forum thread mentions that there are no specific regulations preventing sailors from having personal cell phones but they generally can't get cell signal, can't connect to ship networks, and need to be off or in airplane mode when EMCON is declared.
Here is an example of a sailor who was tried and sent to prison for taking unauthorized photos inside a submarine. From what I've read, personal device use on submarines is a little more strict.
Guidelines on having a cell phone on your person:
I could find no evidence that it is permissible to record screens onboard a ship without reprimand and an abundance of evidence that doing so can have severe consequences. It seems reasonable to me that these videos were recorded with permission from superiors and they weren't covertly recorded. I don't think the people who recorded the screens will face any consequences but the question then becomes how did these videos make it to the media. Is the list of people with access to UAPTF related materials broad enough that it would be unclear who is leaking media to Corbell?
A final note, Corbell has said he has multiple leaks and is releasing them over time instead of all at once. It is possible someone leaked all of this media to him as one dump and there is no ongoing contact with the leaker.
I think Mick surmised that the UI showed a surface level radar. This also explains the "138 knots, holy sh**t it's moving fast " remark since while 138 knots is normal for a military drone, it's incredibly fast for a boat. So the drones must be very near the surface, possibly even skimming the waves at times. Also, the sudden changes could be due to the contacts flying perpendicular, which is an evasive maneuver used by low-level aircraft to shake a radar-lock. Usually, this results in the contact being lost amidst ground noise. I think there are times in the video where the contacts both move perpendicular to the predicted velocity vector, and also shake off the radar lock. As you said, they could also be moving up.
deirdre
Senior Member.
you are.
138 knots is actually pretty fast for a drone, and usually can only be accomplished by the higher performance, larger air frame versions. The ones that rival actual aircraft in size. For example, the MQ-1 Predator tops out at 117 knots. The RQ-21 Blackjack, which seems to be the primary US Navy drone, tops out at 90 knots. 138 knots for a drone in a drone swarm would probably warrant a "holy shit", especially when it seems the rest were cruising at 50 knots.
DavidB66
Active Member
I have edited my #153 above to correct an error and an oversight. The error was an incorrect reference to a previous post (#93). The oversight was that I had forgotten that #93 doesn't estimate the time of the final clip in the video, since the Swan Ace ship, which formed a key reference point, had disappeared from the screen. This is important, as it is the final clip which suddenly shows a large number of 'UAPs'. Moreover, the disappearance of the Swan Ace, after moving very little during the previous clips, suggests that there was a larger time interval before the final clip. It is also a counterexample to any assumption that in the video 'sudden disappearance' equates to 'shoots off into space', since nobody will suppose that this happened to the Swan Ace!
DavidB66
Active Member
Apparently, drone racing is a thing. As of April 2019, the world speed record for a non-military drone was over 160 mph, and in short bursts speeds of up to 180 mph were possible. Still, 138 knots is indeed pretty fast, if it was not a radar glitch or a misreading of the data on screen.
Similar threads
Election 2020
-
Claim: MI Court: Michigan Secretary of State’s Absentee Ballot Order Broke Law, Vindicating Trump Claim
- Started by BigFatAtheist
- Replies: 6
-
Biden's New Head [Old Photos, Squinting, Hair Transplant]- Started by Mick West
- Replies: 22
-
Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door]- Started by TEEJ
- Replies: 19
