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 -

Another released video


stereologist

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

My connection at work is hopeless to day but I believe that at  the bottom center of that display it will say BLK when black hot is selected.  Might take a look again and tell us what it is saying when the object is black on the display

Looked over the video again. When the object switches from white to black, the indicator at the bottom left of the display flicks over from black hot to white hot, then, when the object appears white again, the indicator goes back to black hot. I'm convinced the object is cold. Too cold to be driven by a fuel-burning engine; too cold to even be a bird. This raises some interesting questions about the nature of the object, it seems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

The two video images I used show distant planes. They show up black regardless of the setting used.

You are assuming that white to black or black to white is a single range. Many display systems repeat that range of "colors" over the range of the signal. One application for this is to prevent bird strikes as well as detect planes, detect people in the water, etc.

The  'Nimitz' and 'Gimbal' videos are alleged, by some, to be distant planes. One ready reason for thinking otherwise is the very point you note. Distant planes, it seems, should  consistently show excess heat; black in hot black mode, and white in hot white mode. The failure to do so consistently, here, seems to suggest an object that can be made to emit a good deal of heat, or very little, at will.   

Edited by bison
added comma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bison said:

Looked over the video again. When the object switches from white to black, the indicator at the bottom left of the display flicks over from black hot to white hot, then, when the object appears white again, the indicator goes back to black hot. I'm convinced the object is cold. Too cold to be driven by a fuel-burning engine; too cold to even be a bird. This raises some interesting questions about the nature of the object, it seems. 

OK thanks, I have never used the system so have no professional knowledge and so don't know the thresholds but from this available online source you would be correct.  https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/G_Advanced_Targeting_FLIR_(ATFLIR)

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bison said:

The  'Nimitz' and 'Gimbal' videos are alleged, by some, to be distant planes. One ready reason for thinking otherwise is the very point you note. Distant planes, it seems, should  consistently show excess heat; black in hot black mode, and white in hot white mode. The failure to do so consistently, here, seems to suggest an object that can be made to emit a good deal of heat, or very little, at will.   

Not at all. You seem to think that this is a cheezy black to white display with some sort of idea of what is hot and what is not.

Distant planes will not show as hot as their exhaust. People in water will show as  hot. If the device shows features in the water such as waves then it must be showing more than a simple heat response. The water is nearly the same temperature everywhere.  If the device is to show the heat of engine exhaust at over 1000K and were limited to temperatures of 0K to 1000K then a range of 1000 would be reduced to a pixel being approximately 4K for every value of a pixel. The water surface would show up as a solid, single value. It does not. This simple observation tells  us that the device is much more sophisticated.

Distant planes as in the Chilean fiasco in which Kean again showed herself to be a bumbler showed a dark object in the sky. Planes shows up dark. The exhaust does not. This tells us that there must be some sort of sophisticated image processing happening in addition to the simple issue of the IR single that is digitized. A guess that a plane should appear something other than black is a guess. I would suggest that a plane would be black except for the engine areas. If the engine heat were invading the rest of the structure then I would expect the structure to fail. My understanding is that engines get hot enough that they rely on parts floating on fluid, ie floating on air, to prevent melting.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/how-do-you-stop-jet-engine-melting

Quote

The inside of a jet engine reaches temperatures hotter than molten lava!  These temperatures are also above the melting point of the metal turbine blades which make up the engine interior. These blades are forced to spin by the expanding hot exhaust gases travelling through the engine. They extract energy from the gas stream and use it to drive the large fan that are visible at the front of the engine, and this is what produces most of the thrust. 

Okay, so we want to  control the spread of the heat. So it seems that clever engineering is involved and you can learn about it from this and many other online links.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw this. Seems the Pentagon is now admitting it had a program that investigated pilot sightings that was closed down in 2012.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/newly-released-dod-video-purportedly-shows-navy-pilots/story?id=53671546

Link to comment
Share on other sites

going through all the tech stuff is pointless: 'hot cold- cold hot etc'

it's not going to be something humans have never seen before.. why would it be? why would anyone even consider the possibility it might be?:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stereo is correct (again!) - IR cameras use a mixture of ir and visible light to get the result, and the sea surface shows that admirably.  If there is not a huge amount of difference in temp (and even though the little birdy might be quite warm internally, s/he has insulating feathers that are likely very close to the ambient air temp on the outside.  Most of the color where there isn't much IR information (be it negative or positive) will be from the *visible* wavelengths.  What's more, you also need to check that the image itself hasn't been reversed neg-to-pos or vice versa.  Without knowing ALL the facts, and without having an expert on that camera available with a full knowledge of the settings used and sensitivity/dynamic range performance of the camera... all this expert analysis I am seeing above is about as useful as Erno's wild-ass guess about speeds.

All I'll say is:

- it sure looks like a small to medium sized seabird, given the apparent size and speed of the wave motion.  And yes, I'm pretty familiar with the ocean and what seabirds look like visually...

- the voices sound rather unlike pilots, more like morons..

- the sources for these videos (I see Secureteam 10 above..) seem to be rather .. er.. unprofessional by reputation and also by the nature of the slim documentation, if any, supplied with these videos.

 

May I ask a dumb question, let's say these images did show a hot/cold anomaly zippin' along...  What other useful information or analysis do you think could be done that m,ight show it was somehow unexplainable by terrestrial sources?

Here's a hint that might assist you to answer that question - I don't waste much of my time on this utterly useless garbage, as they are worthless amateur interpretations of quite complex technical devices most likely being used by pilots who had/have little more knowledge than we do..  I'm guessing it's the first time they captured a bird..  Woopdedoo. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The object is locked on by the auto targeting system at 4.4 kilometers. This is shown in the info to the right as the targeting computers locks on to it.

The FLIR (Forward looking infrared) shows that upon lock-on, it tracks it at a rate of about 1 degree per second (FLIR rotation speed) in relation to the aircraft actual heading.

Considering the FLIR had to move an entire degree to lock-on to the object after it missed two lock-on attempt's from that range, I would say the object is moving fairly fast.

The further out to sea you go, the farther apart and larger waves can become. So these could be larger waves, appearing to be smaller ones.

As for the source of the video, any tampering etc. No comment.

Edited by South Alabam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you ChrLzs. I was assuming that the image was part optical just like a camera can see the IR output of a remote control. As anyone should know, band pass filters cannot be absolute cutoffs. Mathematical proofs show that to be the case. Since IR is adjacent to optical wavelengths there should be some overlap in the imaging modality. But after that there is the ability of the software to transform the imaging information into as much information as the human can accept. There can be aliasing such as the object disappearing between frames. The goal is to inform the user with pertinent information. Maybe that is a bird that the pilot does into want sucked into the engine. Maybe it is an enemy. Maybe it is a civilian aircraft to be avoided and avoided discretely.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

May I ask a dumb question,

May I also ask a few:

who's telling us this is REAL Navy footage?

If it is REAL Navy footage then why are they telling us they don't know what it is?

It may well be REAL Navy footage of something normal but the freaky people got hold of it & turned it into something strange?

Who knows=== does anyone really seriously F-ing care anymore??:sleepy:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

The object is locked on by the auto targeting system at 4.4 kilometers. This is shown in the info to the right as the targeting computers locks on to it.

The FLIR (Forward looking infrared) shows that upon lock-on, it tracks it at a rate of about 1 degree per second (FLIR rotation speed) in relation to the aircraft actual heading.

Considering the FLIR had to move an entire degree to lock-on to the object after it missed two lock-on attempt's from that range, I would say the object is moving fairly fast.

The further out to sea you go, the farther apart and larger waves can become. So these could be larger waves, appearing to be smaller ones.

As for the source of the video, any tampering etc. No comment.

So we have an aircraft moving fast and a bird moving relatively slowly.  The object would appear to be "moving fairly fast" against the water. Look at the waves and make some claims about the size of the waves. Check the storm situation to get an idea about wave sizes. Tell us a range of speeds for this bird.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

So we have an aircraft moving fast and a bird moving relatively slowly.  The object would appear to be "moving fairly fast" against the water. Look at the waves and make some claims about the size of the waves. Check the storm situation to get an idea about wave sizes. Tell us a range of speeds for this bird.

That's just it. It is hard to say how large the waves are without something to measure them against. It could be a bird or something larger. Really hard to tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm stupid-- there's a good chance of that I must admit but:

I've looked into this & can't find any confirmation that this footage has legitimately come from the Navy.

Everything I've read/ news clips I've watched tell us it's 'Navy Footage'== who says it is!?!

Is it supposed to be 'leaked' footage from an unknown source? I'm highly confused.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

That's just it. It is hard to say how large the waves are without something to measure them against. It could be a bird or something larger. Really hard to tell.

Watch the video and hit pause often. You will see that the white dot disappears in most pauses. At least that is what I saw. This tells me that the white dot is small, possibly much smaller than a pixel. Suppose it is 10m between waves, then the object is on the order of less than a meter across. If the waves are 30m apart then the object is still  on the order of 1m in size.

The simple fact is that the object is bird sized. The people at to the scam rip you off fake academy want to sucker people in because someone in a plane used an expletive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

Maybe I'm stupid-- there's a good chance of that I must admit but:

I've looked into this & can't find any confirmation that this footage has legitimately come from the Navy.

Everything I've read/ news clips I've watched tell us it's 'Navy Footage'== who says it is!?!

Is it supposed to be 'leaked' footage from an unknown source? I'm highly confused.....

I like your attention to detail. I've taken this to be real but for all I know it is someone filming pelagic species from an island or sea cliff.

Edited by stereologist
wish I could write this evening
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Watch the video and hit pause often. You will see that the white dot disappears in most pauses. At least that is what I saw. This tells me that the white dot is small, possibly much smaller than a pixel. Suppose it is 10m between waves, then the object is on the order of less than a meter across. If the waves are 30m apart then the object is still  on the order of 1m in size.

The simple fact is that the object is bird sized. The people at to the scam rip you off fake academy want to sucker people in because someone in a plane used an expletive.

That's why I said this: As for the source of the video, any tampering etc. No comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

That's why I said this: As for the source of the video, any tampering etc. No comment.

why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dejarma said:

why not?

I have no idea who they are. If they are like secureteam10 I wouldn't even have watched the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, South Alabam said:

I have no idea who they are. If they are like secureteam10 I wouldn't even have watched the video.

 

it's comments like this that help to put it all into perspective= & send yet another piece of: 'so-called evidence' to the s==t bin;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2018 at 4:39 PM, stereologist said:

The object is hotter than the background. The image is IR and is white hot.  The bird shows up as white hot.

I went back and looked at the  video and saw that often the bird disappears from the image. It is small enough the it's existence in the video is washed out by the colder background water. It is small compared to the background waves.

They are switching between "Blk" and "Wht" as shown in lower left hand corner and when in Blk the target is white and when Blk is selected the target is white.   I don't know what the thresholds are or is=f that object is being tweaked by scam artists.  Id on't like making any judgments on these things videos the source is such an untrustworthy one as is the case here and I have never used the ATFLIR, or any FLIR for that matter as I was out of the cockpit when the Tomcat got those systems.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming this video is ligit, I don’t think these pilots would be that excited about locking on to a bird. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Experienced pilots would have seen any number of birds in flight, under a variety of conditions. And yes, the pilots are clearly excited by what their infrared camera systems are showing, as seen in the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I immediately thought experimental drone as the Navy is testing many new designs including a tanker.  Interesting times to say teh least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I would try and calculate an altitude for the object based on the numbers shown in the video. Using basic trig I calculated two numbers from the start and finish points about 20 sec apart. The first came out at 14,380 ft, the finish altitude was 14,705 ft, there will be a margin for error with these numbers but it might be reasonable to use a figure of 14,500 ft as a round number ? One thing I did notice was the camera angle shown seemed to be independent of aircraft banking, the video seems to indicate that the camera angle is related to the aircraft platform but for the camera to track the object with angles displayed then it must reference the real horizon, unless I am missing something.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.