No, what I'm talking about is how glare fundamentally works on any optical system. The mathematics of wave propagation are the same whether we're dealing with visible light, infrared, radio, or even sound.Your explanations on glare are very detailed, but frankly they are just speculations on how a glare would behave in those systems.
I was pretty transparent in saying that simple convolution with a kernel is speculative, and just one example of something like what is observed could happen. But we already know it's glare on the grounds of extremely strong evidence, which my speculations here have no bearing on. The question I'm answering here is simple: can it be that a glare can change shape like that? Yes, it can be.You can make all sort of theories like this to explain what we observe, but without evidence or backing by a real expert, it's just speculations.
Just the other day a commercial pilot on reddit posted a video of a UFO that turned out to be another airliner on a regularly scheduled flight, that just happened to look like it was stationary next to a contrail because it happened to move in just the right way for that to happen. He, as a commercial pilot, would (and did!) say he never saw anything like it. But it was just another airplane -- the number one thing pilots are trained to look out for. Sometimes, common things look unusual.At the end of the day we have aviators saying they have never seen an IR signature like this before, and no directly comparable examples that shows an IR signature like this either. We need to accept we are left in the dark here.
From a scientific perspective, we don't have to show that it's "mundane", though of course it's very satisfying when a case admits a complete resolution. What matters is; does this case admit only an extraordinary explanation, or could it be a confluence of ordinary factors? What I mean when I say "defeat that line of reasoning" is not about winning internet debater points, it's about whether or not the evidence is sufficient to reject the null hypothesis that this is an ordinary airplane doing ordinary airplane things. I'll have more to say on the other thread, but to stick to the topic here I'll simply ask: is there anything about this glare, whether its shape (and change thereof) or its movement that's impossible to realize with a jet engine?Putting all the evidence together makes this case incredibly puzzling, objectively. I believe it needs to be presented as such, and not as "debunked" or "mundane", something I still see all the time in online discussions (Twitter, Reddit etc).
Based on what I've found here it's a little unclear whether the ATFLIR changes its exposure or only the gain and level, but either way if those are being adjusted here then we should see the effect of those on the entire image, not just the blob in the middle. And based on some initial checks, it seems that maybe we do ? I'm not sure. The whole image seems to get brighter in WHT or darker in BHT in a way that's somewhat correlated with the change in the size of the blob. The correlation is not perfect, but you wouldn't expect it to be perfect as there are multiple things that go into determining the size of the blob. It's not clear if something other than exposure/gain/level could be causing this correlation though. It has been suggested that the heat from the object might be reflected from other things in the scene, but could it really light up the cold night sky like that ?It's also possible the exposure is being adjusted, or that the software filters are doing something different as the video progresses.