6 ms·

At least those videos [1] are just birds, see for example this analysis [2]. Skip to the meat of it, if you dislike the style of the video. [1] https://www.you

At least those videos [1] are just birds, see for example this analysis [2]. Skip to the meat of it, if you dislike the style of the video. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkPn-YMp9vI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkPn-YMp9vI [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHs

bufferoverflow 5y ago
What kind of a freaking bird travels at fighter jet speeds and rotates like that? I'm a photographer who loves watching birds, taking photos, I watch other bird photographers. It's never anything like that.
- danbruc 5y ago
  It isn't. The bird is between the sea and the jet and for all practically purposes stationary. When the camera pod on the jet tracks the bird and keeps it in the center of the field of view, what you are seeing is a parallax motion of the sea in the background due to the motion of the jet. This refers to the second clip in the linked video which also also the focus of the linked analysis.
  - bufferoverflow 5y ago
    You need to listen to the interview with the pilots who filmed this. They were chasing it, and couldn't catch up.
    - robotresearcher 5y ago
      Which is what you’d see of a bit of gum stuck to the sensor lens. I’m not saying that’s what this is, I’m pointing out that what the pilots perceive is not to be taken at face value.
      - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
        Are you sure it wasn't swamp gas?
      - pmarreck 5y ago
        Completely discrediting the testimony of multiple pilots is just as ludicrous.
pmarreck 5y ago
the idea that not only the FLIR but the radar echoes from multiple radars (which all concurred on the high-speed aspect) is somehow explained by a bird flying in a perfectly straight line plus some parallax effects, is ludicrous
- danbruc 5y ago
  If you are willing to look at the actual evidence, I am willing to discuss this with you. One specific case, GOFAST.wmv [1], because it has relatively good quality and seems easy to analyze. For this case I am only aware of the video, but if there is additional evidence, we can also look at that, but I want to start with the video first. My first point would be, that the size of the object, more specifically the area facing the camera, is no more than about 1.5 meters wide and 1.0 meters high. Would you agree? [1] https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents?name=GOFAST https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents?name=GOFAST
  - pmarreck 5y ago
    Where are you getting that size information from? My concerns: 1) I don't think the camera isn't stationary (the first few seconds make this pretty clear). Wouldn't a parallax speed illusion require a moving observer? and in this case a RAPIDLY moving observer? (Edit: It seems this was in fact on an F/A-18, just at very long range.) 2) I don't see any wings. 3) If this system trivially locked onto birds, I'm pretty sure it would get tossed out to sea due to all the false positives. Here is an actual F/A-18 pilot discussing the ATFLIR videos with regards to these UFO sightings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbQdksSakE0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbQdksSakE0 including what every indicator on the display means. I tried to find the ATFLIR manual PDF but failed lol.
    - danbruc 5y ago
      I took one frame, frame 384 to be precise, where the system has locked onto the object and tracks it. The frame is 428 pixels wide and high. The AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR has three selectable fields of view and during the entire video it is set to NAR with zoom 1.0 wich means 0.7°. Dividing this by the frame dimension gives us the angular size of one pixel as 0.0016355°. The system reports the distance to the object as 4.4 Nm or equivalently 8148.8 m. Here one could argue that the system may report an incorrect distance but for now I will assume that value is correct. Multiplying the tangent of the angular pixel size with this distance to the object gives us the pixel size at this distance as 0.233 m. Finally we see that the locked objects covers an area 6 pixel wide and 4 pixels high which multiplied with the pixel size at the object distance gives us the camera facing object size as 1.395 m wide and 0.930 m high. width = tan(0.7° / 428 px) * 4.4 Nm * 6 px height = tan(0.7° / 428 px) * 4.4 Nm * 4 px I am not addressing your concerns now because they are not relevant for determining the size of the object. Any objections so far?

bufferoverflow 5y ago

What kind of a freaking bird travels at fighter jet speeds and rotates like that? I'm a photographer who loves watching birds, taking photos, I watch other bird photographers. It's never anything like that.

danbruc 5y ago
It isn't. The bird is between the sea and the jet and for all practically purposes stationary. When the camera pod on the jet tracks the bird and keeps it in the center of the field of view, what you are seeing is a parallax motion of the sea in the background due to the motion of the jet. This refers to the second clip in the linked video which also also the focus of the linked analysis.
- bufferoverflow 5y ago
  You need to listen to the interview with the pilots who filmed this. They were chasing it, and couldn't catch up.
  - robotresearcher 5y ago
    Which is what you’d see of a bit of gum stuck to the sensor lens. I’m not saying that’s what this is, I’m pointing out that what the pilots perceive is not to be taken at face value.
    - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
      Are you sure it wasn't swamp gas?
    - pmarreck 5y ago
      Completely discrediting the testimony of multiple pilots is just as ludicrous.

pmarreck 5y ago

the idea that not only the FLIR but the radar echoes from multiple radars (which all concurred on the high-speed aspect) is somehow explained by a bird flying in a perfectly straight line plus some parallax effects, is ludicrous

danbruc 5y ago
If you are willing to look at the actual evidence, I am willing to discuss this with you. One specific case, GOFAST.wmv [1], because it has relatively good quality and seems easy to analyze. For this case I am only aware of the video, but if there is additional evidence, we can also look at that, but I want to start with the video first. My first point would be, that the size of the object, more specifically the area facing the camera, is no more than about 1.5 meters wide and 1.0 meters high. Would you agree? [1] https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents?name=GOFAST https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents?name=GOFAST
- pmarreck 5y ago
  Where are you getting that size information from? My concerns: 1) I don't think the camera isn't stationary (the first few seconds make this pretty clear). Wouldn't a parallax speed illusion require a moving observer? and in this case a RAPIDLY moving observer? (Edit: It seems this was in fact on an F/A-18, just at very long range.) 2) I don't see any wings. 3) If this system trivially locked onto birds, I'm pretty sure it would get tossed out to sea due to all the false positives. Here is an actual F/A-18 pilot discussing the ATFLIR videos with regards to these UFO sightings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbQdksSakE0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbQdksSakE0 including what every indicator on the display means. I tried to find the ATFLIR manual PDF but failed lol.
  - danbruc 5y ago
    I took one frame, frame 384 to be precise, where the system has locked onto the object and tracks it. The frame is 428 pixels wide and high. The AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR has three selectable fields of view and during the entire video it is set to NAR with zoom 1.0 wich means 0.7°. Dividing this by the frame dimension gives us the angular size of one pixel as 0.0016355°. The system reports the distance to the object as 4.4 Nm or equivalently 8148.8 m. Here one could argue that the system may report an incorrect distance but for now I will assume that value is correct. Multiplying the tangent of the angular pixel size with this distance to the object gives us the pixel size at this distance as 0.233 m. Finally we see that the locked objects covers an area 6 pixel wide and 4 pixels high which multiplied with the pixel size at the object distance gives us the camera facing object size as 1.395 m wide and 0.930 m high. width = tan(0.7° / 428 px) * 4.4 Nm * 6 px height = tan(0.7° / 428 px) * 4.4 Nm * 4 px I am not addressing your concerns now because they are not relevant for determining the size of the object. Any objections so far?