Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Navy pilot saw object 'not of this world'


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

Just now, stereologist said:

Basic physics failure.

No I was making what is called a caveat. But Obviously all "distant Jets" experience atmospheric resistance. You know, basic physics. What was your point you are failing to answer my questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, lost_shaman said:

No I was making what is called a caveat. But Obviously all "distant Jets" experience atmospheric resistance. You know, basic physics. What was your point you are failing to answer my questions?

I guess you don't understand the glaring contradiction here: " That plot is labeled terminal velocity which is not compatible with your earlier statement of " Assuming you are near Sea level and ignoring air resistance " "

Your log plot is a blunder through and through. Just what do you think is logarithmic? What are you trying to do here because the math is just gibberish.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I guess you don't understand the glaring contradiction here: " That plot is labeled terminal velocity which is not compatible with your earlier statement of " Assuming you are near Sea level and ignoring air resistance " "

The math is different if you are in orbit for example and Newton ignored air resistance.  Make a Point and answer my questions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Your log plot is a blunder through and through. Just what do you think is logarithmic? What are you trying to do here because the math is just gibberish.

Again think of a rock... it's Mass may no change for example but you could throw the same rock a lot further on Mars where the g force is smaller than you can throw it on Earth where the g force is 1 g! The same principle applies to a falling object that starts falling farther away from Earth's center of gravity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lost_shaman said:

The math is different if you are in orbit for example and Newton ignored air resistance.  Make a Point and answer my questions. 

Thanks for telling us that whatever plot you linked to is gibberish.

You are also completely lost as to why a plot is labeled terminal velocity is not compatible with your earlier statement of " Assuming you are near Sea level and ignoring air resistance " In fact you now claim that the "math is different if you are in orbit for example and Newton ignored air resistance". That too is wrong. The math is the same except that coefficients are zero or non-zero. Newton's second law covers air resistance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

Thanks for telling us that whatever plot you linked to is gibberish.

You are also completely lost as to why a plot is labeled terminal velocity is not compatible with your earlier statement of " Assuming you are near Sea level and ignoring air resistance " In fact you now claim that the "math is different if you are in orbit for example and Newton ignored air resistance". That too is wrong. The math is the same except that coefficients are zero or non-zero. Newton's second law covers air resistance.

I've had enough of this. You are just trying to get these threads closed by derailing them and I'm not going to play that game even though I attempt answer everyone in good faith. You've lost that good faith. 

Not sure why this subject of UAP's makes you a desperate man but it's not my problem. Good luck figuring out that issue man. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Again think of a rock... it's Mass may no change for example but you could throw the same rock a lot further on Mars where the g force is smaller than you can throw it on Earth where the g force is 1 g! The same principle applies to a falling object that starts falling farther away from Earth's center of gravity. 

This has nothing at all to do with the issue. Your apparent complete lack of understanding of physics is now well established.

On the ISS people experience around 0.89g. On top of Everest around 0.996g. Within the atmosphere the difference is negligible. It appears in the third digit of precision.

To help you out, the plot is labeled terminal velocity. That is about speed and air resistance. There is no terminal velocity when there is no air resistance That certainly conflicts with your "ignoring air resistance" statement.

These are all basic ideas and it seems that these basic introductory physics concepts are not known to you. Instead of the arrogant blustering take the time to learn from others when they point out your mistakes, especially glaring errors such as these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are obviously misrepresenting what I was trying to originally say.  You are not answering my questions. You seem to be desperate to derail these threads and have them closed. I'm not going to "help" you do that. I'm not even going to point out where you are wrong because you are ignoring anything that is relevant to this thread. 

Where is that Ignore button when I need it for the first time in 11 years?!!! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

You are obviously misrepresenting what I was trying to originally say.  You are not answering my questions. You seem to be desperate to derail these threads and have them closed. I'm not going to "help" you do that. I'm not even going to point out where you are wrong because you are ignoring anything that is relevant to this thread. 

**snip**

Did you learn some basic physics and learn that:

1. A falling object moves 16 feet in the first second from rest, not 32 as you originally claimed?

2. Did you learn that g can be considered a constant in the zone that the planes flew?

3. Did you learn that terminal velocity refers to a system with air resistance?

4. Did you learn that mass does not change even if the gravitational force changes?

5. Did you learn that a plot should be checked to make sure units match up, titles match up, and basic physics should make sense - all failures of the plot you linked to?

6. Did you learn the difference between velocity and acceleration - errors seen in the logarithmic comments and the plot?

These are some of the errors I pointed out and really need to be understood. Such basic issues need to be understood before moving onto more complex issues.

I do hope you take the time to learn the issues that were discussed in order to move forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Area201 said:

1. No exhausts in FLIR footage of planes claimed to be the object in question.

2. Uniform blob (heat signature) of object in question. Inconsistent with alleged plane(s) signature.

 

1. Why do you say there is no exhaust?

2. What are you suggesting that a uniform blob means?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, stereologist said:

1. Why do you say there is no exhaust?

2. What are you suggesting that a uniform blob means?

Area posted a video which no one watched, and it does show what exhaust looks like on a FLIR. 

There is nothing like that in this video. 

Also, the pilot said there was no exhaust. Elizondo said there was no exhaust. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, stereologist said:

1. Why do you say there is no exhaust?

2. What are you suggesting that a uniform blob means?

Hi Stereo, yes I am also curious as your point 1 suggests you have seen exhausts in the FLIR footage, which to be honest I cannot. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have an independent account of the radar tracking of the UFO by the U.S. Navy ship Princeton. Thank you, Erno 86. (post 256, page 11, this thread.) 

This account is headed:  "Object outmaneuvers 2 jets over Pacific'. It states that the object was tracked by radar after it accelerated away from Commander Fravor's plane. The object is reported by the Princeton to have covered 60 miles in the span of one minute. That amounts to 3600 miles per hour.

This supports Commander Fravor's statement that the object moved away from him at extraordinary speed.  It also happens to agree with the conservative assumption that reduced the distance traveled  from 'miles', as stated by Commander Fravor, to a single mile, thus giving an end speed of 3600 miles per hour ( 1 mile per second.). 

It appears that the object  put on an intense burst of acceleration in the first second, and thereafter maintained speed for at least one minute. 

Edited by bison
added information, removed modifier
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bison said:

We have an independent account of the radar tracking of the UFO by the U.S. Navy ship Princeton. Thank you, Erno 86. (post 256, page 11, this thread.) 

This account is headed:  "Object outmaneuvers 2 jets over Pacific'. It states that the object was tracked by radar after it accelerated away from Commander Fravor's plane. The object is reported by the Princeton to have covered 60 miles in the span of one minute. That amounts to 3600 miles per hour.

This supports Commander Fravor's statement that the object moved away from him at extraordinary speed.  It also happens to agree with the conservative assumption that reduced the distance traveled  from 'miles', as stated by Commander Fravor, to a single mile, thus giving an end speed of 3600 miles per hour ( 1 mile per second.).  

That is quick indeed, however not outside the realms of our science or technology. https://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html

It's Official. X-43A Raises the Bar to Mach 9.6
Guinness World Records recognized NASA's X-43A scramjet with a new world speed record for a jet-powered aircraft - Mach 9.6, or nearly 7,000 mph. The X-43A set the new mark and broke its own world record on its third and final flight on Nov. 16, 2004.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, South Alabam.  This makes for an interesting comparison of our hypersonic technology in 2004, to that of the unknown object.

The X 34 A had a length of 12 feet and a wingspan of 5 feet, and looked like a flattish jet plane. It was carried aloft by a B 52 B aircraft, released, and accelerated to speed by a booster rocket.  It made two successful flights, in March 2004, and again on Nov. 16th, 2004.  

Since neither of these match the date of the Commander Fravor incident, which was on Nov 14, 2004, it can not, of course, explain this encounter. This UFO incident had been directly preceded by two weeks of similar UFO activity around the ship concerned. This confirms that our own hypersonic flight experiments were not responsible for the activity.

Edited by bison
corrected misspelling
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

2. What are you suggesting that a uniform blob means?

Other FLIR video shows variance, some parts are lighter, some darker (depending if it's reversed might be opposite to help see object and background better for viewer).

The blob is argued by UFO Proof as not consistent with the FLIR video of planes, therefore not a plane. If there is "blooming" or pixel crowding, whatever what's his face mentioned here, then it doesn't happen on other FLIR videos found. Maybe it depends on the distance from plane? I don't know beyond looking at comparison of known video Vs the unknown object video. 

14 hours ago, stereologist said:

I've already posted FLIR which shows no exhaust so why are posters looking for something they imagine should be there when videos do not show it?

Where? We posted several FLIR images and video (unwatched) of planes showing exhaust, some from bottom, some from back end. You can't claim we "imagine" something should be there. Try again.

Edited by Area201
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

Area posted a video which no one watched, and it does show what exhaust looks like on a FLIR. 

There is nothing like that in this video. 

Also, the pilot said there was no exhaust. Elizondo said there was no exhaust. 

I posted a link to a FLIR video and specified the time to examine the video at which jets are seen and look the same as in the video showing the distant jets that have been called UFOs.

What is the issue? I didn't bother to watch the video posted by Area201 because no reason was given to watch the video.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bison said:

We have an independent account of the radar tracking of the UFO by the U.S. Navy ship Princeton. Thank you, Erno 86. (post 256, page 11, this thread.) 

This account is headed:  "Object outmaneuvers 2 jets over Pacific'. It states that the object was tracked by radar after it accelerated away from Commander Fravor's plane. The object is reported by the Princeton to have covered 60 miles in the span of one minute. That amounts to 3600 miles per hour.

This supports Commander Fravor's statement that the object moved away from him at extraordinary speed.  It also happens to agree with the conservative assumption that reduced the distance traveled  from 'miles', as stated by Commander Fravor, to a single mile, thus giving an end speed of 3600 miles per hour ( 1 mile per second.). 

It appears that the object  put on an intense burst of acceleration in the first second, and thereafter maintained speed for at least one minute. 

It's the same report we've been seeing just listed by another group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/01/2018 at 0:13 AM, stereologist said:

The image is created from infrared or IR. The image  information coming to the sensor is the IR signal. The IR signal is converted to the optical range which we can see.

Thanks Stereologist. I'm not up to date with IR and FLIR etc. So IR wavelengths can hide the shape.., when zoomed out. But when the pilot zooms in.., this removes the issue.

Kinda basically like any camera? If I took the same images with an optical lens.., the objects shape would appear circular when zoomed out. When magnified.., we can see the shape clearer. Is this basically it? (bur IR is a bit worse)

Something like this.., where the plane is a dot until zoomed in.

 

Also.., just wondering still about the images being Infrared, or not. I thought cold objects were dark, and white objects were hot.., but not sure and can't find any info on this. Can you help me out?

262758m.jpg

I put the Fravor UFO beside those images to compare. The object is dark, and the background is bright.., just like your examples

I added the 2 Nimitz images on the far right.., the 1st looks similar to the Infrared images. (Object is dark, background is clear).., But it claims to be "TV mode". Then the one beside claims to be Infrared. But the background is dark.., and the object is bright.

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like @stereologist has been check mated into a corner and now just flat out talking nonsense, failing to provide links to back claims, and avoiding seeing the proposed evidence. 

All in a day's work. Almost, now time to shovel the snow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Area201 said:

Other FLIR video shows variance, some parts are lighter, some darker (depending if it's reversed might be opposite to help see object and background better for viewer).

The blob is argued by UFO Proof as not consistent with the FLIR video of planes, therefore not a plane. If there is "blooming" or pixel crowding, whatever what's his face mentioned here, then it doesn't happen on other FLIR videos found. Maybe it depends on the distance from plane? I don't know beyond looking at comparison of known video Vs the unknown object video. 

Where? We posted several FLIR images and video (unwatched) of planes showing exhaust, some from bottom, some from back end. You can't claim we "imagine" something should be there. Try again.

I've seen such arguments when UFO groups stated emphatically that the lights were not flares when video was released by the hoaxers that showed it was indeed flares.

There are lots of different IR systems for the military. The manner in which the image is generated is different for each system. The differences are often termed proprietary methods. Blooming is an inherent problem with all such sensors. It certainly happens on FLIR videos just as it happens in optical systems. The question is how this issue is handled by the particular system.

In the following link is an IR expert.

http://badufos.blogspot.com/2017/12/about-those-glowing-auras-in-pentagon.html

Quote

I know exactly what the glowing aura is....it is a common image processing artifact called "ringing"....Frankly, I'm surprised the ATFLIR has it, we worked hard at [my previous company] to mitigate/eliminate this artifact.  When in "white Hot" you will see that the aura around it is dark, and when in Black hot, it is brighter than the background.  This is the image processing algorithm compensating for the large signal on neighboring pixels where the signal is not there, the algorithm doesn't know the shape of the object, and over-processes the neighboring pixels.  Very common when an object (like jet engines) are images over a cold background (like high altitude clouds).

An expert in IR recognizes the video as jets being imaged.

Quote

Miller says that the objects are likely distant jet aircraft, but we can't see them clearly enough to be sure. Which is itself an interesting question - why is the quality of these videos so terrible?

What perplexes me  (and is telling) is why all these IR UFO videos have such lousy quality.  Modern IR images look like Hi Def black and white TV.   All of these are out of focus, need uniformity correction and generally are crap.  We should be able to make out a shape and even count the engines, or see landing gear if deployed. A sales guy would never show a prospective customer anything like these.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Fila said:

Thanks Stereologist. I'm not up to date with IR and FLIR etc. So IR wavelengths can hide the shape.., when zoomed out. But when the pilot zooms in.., this removes the issue?

Kinda basically like any camera? If I took the same images with an optical lens.., the objects shape would appear circular when zoomed out. When magnified.., we can see the shape clearer. Is this basically it?

Just wondering still about the images being Infrared, or not. I thought cold objects were dark, and white objects were hot.., but not sure and can't find any info on this. Can you help me out?

262758m.jpg

I put the Fravor UFO beside those images to compare. The object is dark, and the background is bright.., just like your examples

I added the Nimitz images.., the 1st looks similar to the Infrared images. (Object is dark, background is clear).., But it claims to be "TV mode". Then the one beside claims to be Infrared. But the background is dark.., and the object is bright.

The blob images are when the exhaust which is hot hides the craft. Also, imagine a checkerboard of dots. This is what an image is made of. Any dot on the screen is some sort of information about a piece of the view. If there is a mix of hot and cold then the IR system in some manner combines that information to make that one dot. That one dot is one sensor in a checkerboard of sensors. For simplicity, let's assume that each dot is independent. That really isn't the case in many camera systems. The information in a dot is translated to some sort of display information. This is commonly done using 8 bit color. Grayscale images have RGB assigned to the same value or they are just a single value. Eight bits, a number from 0 to 255, seems to be fine enough resolution for the limitations of our eyes. The image inside of the system can be displayed in different ways by applying a LUT, or look up table. Suppose that the hottest is recorded as 255 and the coldest as 0. Typically 255 is white and 0 is black. A LUT can be applied that inverts the numbers. Then white becomes black and black becomes white. Other LUTs can be made that reveal differences in hot areas or differences in cold areas. If you look at a luggage x-ray image at an airport you will see all sorts of odd colors. These color patterns are generated by a LUT and are used to highlight different types of densities.

IR is similar to optical wavelengths (the part of the spectrum we can see). Just like a bright ligght can hide objects behind it in a photograph, hot objects can obscure cooler objects behind them. A bright reflection or the Sun can caught parts of a photo to be washed out. Hot objects can do the same to parts of an IR image. A small object in a photo shows little detail since the information is crammed into fewer pixels. The same applies to IR. Cram hot and cold objects into fewer pixels and the detail is lost.

Years back there was an incredible website describing photos and the issues with the sequence from source to sensor to image to display device to human eyes that affected what we end up seeing. I'll see what is available. CHrLzs is the real expert on this subject. I hope he pops in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

It's the same report we've been seeing just listed by another group.

I cited the report because it supplied an account of what was being observed on the Princeton, via RADAR, regarding the UFO. It had been objected that there was no independent observation supporting Commander Fravor's story. This is that observation.

It was also claimed that the figures used to calculate the g forces endured by the object were baseless. The account from the Prineton supports a figure of 3600 miles per hour, the same figure used in the g force calculation.

It also supports Commander Fravor's report that the object accelerated from a velocity similar to his own, a few hundred miles per hour, to at least 3600 miles per hour, traveling a mile (or more) away from him in 1 second.    

Edited by bison
improved paragraph structure
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/01/2018 at 8:20 AM, stereologist said:

Suppose that the hottest is recorded as 255 and the coldest as 0. Typically 255 is white and 0 is black. A LUT can be applied that inverts the numbers. Then white becomes black and black becomes white.

Ok cool. Similar to programming and HTML. You gotta use 255, 255, 255 for white, and 0, 0, 0 is black.

Or in hex 255, FFFFFF is white, and 0, 000000 is black.

So white objects are hot in Infrared images.., but you are saying they inverted to image to make this opposite.

 

So it should really look like this before applying the LUT (invert?)

2yx3xmu.jpg

Compared to original images below...

262758m.jpg

Does this mean the Jets are white hot? Does 'TV' mode stand for True Value?

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.