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

3 hours ago, Fila said:

2015 GO FAST FOOTAGE 

https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/2015-go-fast-footage

GO FAST is an authentic DoD video that captures the high-speed flight of an unidentified aircraft at low altitude by a F/A-18 Super Hornet ATFLIR forward-looking infrared system.  While TTSA was the first to obtain a copy, it should be available to any member of the press or public via the Freedom of Information Act.

BACKGROUND
This video, GO FAST, was captured by a U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet using the Raytheon AN/ASQ- 228 Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pod.  This sensor has two imaging modes – mid-wave infrared and visual.  It has high resolution and can locate and designate targets at distances exceeding 40 nm.  The video imagery represents the image displayed in the cockpit to the pilot and Weapon Systems Operators (WSO).  Major features of the display are shown in Figure 1.

The date, location, and other information has been removed by the originating authority as part of the release approval process.

GO FAST was selected for release, like GIMBAL and FLIR1, after review by multiple government organizations.  The object in this video remains unidentified. 

ANALYZING THE VIDEO
As the video starts, the sensor is in infrared “black-hot” mode – black elements in the display are warmer than the dark, or lighter color, areas.  It is at zoom factor 1.0.  The F/A-18 Super Hornet is at 25,000 feet altitude, 259 knots (~300 mph, Mach 0.61), and in level flight.  The sensor is aimed 22 degrees below the horizon and 36 degrees to the left of the F/A-18’s direction.  The ATFLIR tracking trap box is a square in the center of the screen.  The ocean surface is clearly visible in the background. 

Figure 1 - The ATFLIR display reveals significant information regarding flight conditions and characteristics of the imagery

The unidentified vehicle appears as a white oval shape moving at high speed from top right to lower left of the screen flying very low over the water.   Initially, the sensor is unable to capture the object.  The Weapon Systems Operator (WSO) steers the sensor ahead of the object to attempt another capture.  On the third attempt, the sensor tracking capture is successful.   The sensor is now in “autotrack” mode, where the sensor uses contrast and other parameters to lock-on to a target, automatically keeping it centered in the sensors viewing frame.  This mode can track objects that possess speeds and accelerations within defined limits, which are set by expected target maneuver limits.  Autotrack was developed because manual target track with an optical sensor is very difficult.  The automatic modes in the ATFLIR system, specifically “autotrack”, reduces operator workload to facilitate target assessment and engagement.  The operator expresses excitement at having successfully captured the object and the sensor is tracking it.

At the right of the screen, the rangefinder denotes that the object is at 4.4 nautical miles (5.1 statute miles) slant range.  The F/A-18 begins a left turn to keep the object within the field of view of the ATFLIR sensor.

At 0:22, the WSO is asked, “Did you box a moving target?” and responds, “No, it’s in autotrack.”  The question reveals surprise at the possibility of manually capturing the object.  This is indicative of the difficulty in manually tracking the object with the ATFLIR sensor.

OBSERVATIONS
It is important to note:

There are no obvious wings or tails on the object.  Even IR imagery of a cruise missile, would have visible wings at this range.
There is no exhaust plume from the object.   An exhaust plume is clearly visible on conventional aircraft in the mid-wave infrared frequency used by the ATFLIR.  Shown below is a mid-wave infrared image of a F-16 in flight.  The sensor is in “white-hot” mode. Note that the length of the exhaust plume is nearly the length of the aircraft.  The video from which this still was extracted makes it clear that the F-16 is subsonic, which means the throttle is at a low setting which creates relatively low exhaust temperatures and volume of exhaust gases.  In a higher power setting, the exhaust plume would be much larger and brighter.

 

 

Figure 2 - Infrared imagery of known aircraft shows features and characteristics clearly different than the object in the GO FAST video

Wow! A copy and paste from the for profit group. No personal comments.

Let's take a look at what these for profit purveyors of gobbly gook posted.

1. It appears that this is a video clip from the GIMBAL video but 900 seconds earlier.

2. It's apparently the same group on the same plane playing with their equipment and learning how to use it.

3. The video lacks the section normally placed on the front and end noting that this is a video released by the government.

4. The 259 knots and Mach 0.61 are not in agreement probably because these clowns don't understand what they posted.

5. The unidentified vehicle? Seriously vehicle? It is small and probably a bird or weather balloon.

6. They claim "flying very low over the water" when in fact it is over 10,000 feet up. Clowns.

7. They get it right finally that the capture took multiple tries.

8. They also get it right that the equipment operator is excited - probably due to their recent use of the device.

9. Now they suggest that " Even IR imagery of a cruise missile, would have visible wings at this range." A cruise missile is roughly 20 feet long, a 12 foot wingspan and the wings are a foot across. It is not a cruise missile. The object is about 6 to 10 feet across. The "There are no obvious wings or tails on the object." is true but suggesting not a cruise missile is really stupid because it is not in the shape of a cruise missile nor does it show exhaust. This is just an effort to mislead people. This observation does not rule out a bird or a weather balloon.

10. They notice and then waste time misleading with an image that "There is no exhaust plume from the object." That is consistent with a bird or a weather balloon.

What is noticeable is that these clowns get the location of the object wrong, which is over 10,000 feet. They do not estimate the speed of the object which is around 20 to 35 knots. They do not estimate the size, which is 6 to 10 feet across. I think they posted the irrelevant crap they did to feed the loonies believing in them and their for profit group.

They also did not point out that the ocean look tends to be the IR signal reflected from the sky. That is why the waves are seen. The water should be a consistent color. But is shows texture which is really different temperatures from above being reflected from various angled parts of the water surface.

Don't forget this is a part of the GIMBAL video and the times show it to be 900 minutes earlier.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Fila said:

According to the Tom DeLonge crew.., the gimbal video is the first of three US military videos of unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) that has been through the official declassification review process of the United States government and has been approved for public release. https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/gimbal

So I asked about the video because one in white mode has a dark object and another in black mode has a dark object.

But here is a an unrelated comment about the BS coming from the for profit group formed by Delonge.

Didn't this for profit group say they would release 24 videos? After 5 months they have released 3. This video is a part of the GIMBAL video it seems. They chopped up a video into multiple pieces. As I pointed out in a thread about the stories told by Elizondo not matching up with efforts made through the FOIA, it seems that these videos and the group he claimed to run are not being supported by replies from the US government.

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

10 hours ago, Piney said:

What did Barnum say?

Maybe I`m in a intellectual black hole now but who/what is Barnum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, toast said:

Maybe I`m in a intellectual black hole now but who/what is Barnum?

P.T. He said there is a sucker born every minute.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Piney said:

P.T. He said there is a sucker born every minute.

Ah, ok now. Yes, he is right.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, stereologist said:

4. The 259 knots and Mach 0.61 are not in agreement probably because these clowns don't understand what they posted.

At 3000 feet 259 knots might be .40 mach and at 25000 feet it would be around .60 mach.  Mach changes with altitude https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/35408/what-is-the-reason-for-changing-the-speed-reference-ias-or-mach-number-with-al

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Piney said:

P.T. He said there is a sucker born every minute.

P. T. Barnum also said: 'More persons, on the whole, are humbugged by believing in nothing, than by believing too much.'

https://www.inspiringquotes.us/author/7770-p-t-barnum/page:3

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stereo's points are spot on.  To Fila and anyone else interested in how to PROPERLY analyse this sort of stuff, may I suggest you check out this thread at another forum, and be prepared to learn stuff:

https://www.metabunk.org/go-fast-footage-from-tom-delonges-to-the-stars-academy-bird-balloon.t9569/

Yes, they are skeptics, mostly.  But they know their stuff, and they point out exactly why most of that gibberish on the laughable "To The Stars" site is ignorant and completely wrong.   That's why the footage is NOT accompanied by an incident report or a technical analysis.  If those voices on these clips are real, the pilots are clearly either joking or completely new to the ATFLIR, and they have not a clue how to interpret the data.  I'm sure the de-briefing they got afterwards would have been worth seeing..  

If anyone wishes to defend any of the "To The Stars" information, please:

- select the most important point, in your opinion.

- explain, in technical terms, why you were convinced.

 

I'll be happy to address any INFORMED debate from anyone who knows at least the basics of how ATFLIR works, along with perspective, optics and a bit of basic geometry..

The object is NOT near the sea.

It is small, probably 5-6 foot max.

It is NOT moving fast, the apparent speed of the background is due to the aircraft's speed and the camera panning.

The object has exactly the characteristics of either a bird or a weather balloon,  (two of which were released into the region that day).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2018 at 7:56 PM, South Alabam said:

At 3000 feet 259 knots might be .40 mach and at 25000 feet it would be around .60 mach.  Mach changes with altitude https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/35408/what-is-the-reason-for-changing-the-speed-reference-ias-or-mach-number-with-al

I realize that it changes, but the problem is that the person I was responding to was mixing air speed and ground speed. I guess you missed that too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

I realize that it changes, but the problem is that the person I was responding to was mixing air speed and ground speed. I guess you missed that too.

I must have. 259 knots x 1.15 = 298 MPH  and .60 mach at that altitude. I see no more speed data on the link or the post you were responding to. Not arguing btw, just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, South Alabam said:

I must have. 259 knots x 1.15 = 298 MPH  and .60 mach at that altitude. I see no more speed data on the link or the post you were responding to. Not arguing btw, just saying.

Here is the real issue.

Quote

259 knots is incorrect. The number indicated is CAS (Calibrated Air Speed), which is the air speed read by the instruments calibrated for sea level. Adjusting for 25,000 feet altitude the actual True Air Speed is 369 knots

https://www.metabunk.org/go-fast-footage-from-tom-delonges-to-the-stars-academy-bird-balloon.t9569/

Also from

https://www.metabunk.org/go-fast-footage-from-tom-delonges-to-the-stars-academy-bird-balloon.t9569/#post-220136

Quote

Hence, the 254 number is CAS, Calibrated airspeed. It's not groundspeed, and it's not True Airspeed (TAS) which is actually 369 knots (which matches 0.61285*602, where 602 is the speed of sound in knots at 25,000 feet pressure altitude)

Does that help?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Does that help?

The last link did, thanks. I was unsure if it was IAS, CAS or GS they were using previous.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, South Alabam said:

The last link did, thanks. I was unsure if it was IAS, CAS or GS they were using previous.

I was wondering what was going on for quite a while and eventually bumped into someone that knew what was happening. Cheers

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2018 at 5:40 PM, ChrLzs said:

I haven't yet had time to dig much deeper, but I understand that some of the newer ATFLIR's use some kind of laser 'rangefinder' device.  If it is a rangefinder, then I'd definitely want to know the error range, as that will vary - rangefinders work best on nearby stuff - the further away, the greater the error.  If it is a genuine 'radar' type of system where it bounces stuff off the target and times the return that should be more accurate.... but.. as you say, it doesn't seem to behave like that sort of system, and I have my doubts about how well it could lock onto something as tiny as is shown.  The locking seems to be absolutely perfect, and I would have thought that would have been very difficult on a distant tiny little fluffy bundle of feathers, with no significant heat signature..  It's not exactly what they were designed to do..

 

Hmmmmmmmmmm.   I smell a slight whiff of fish, and until I see that provenance....

Sorry I didn't get back earlier, I was off-site for a few days.  I know the ATFLIR has a targetting laser for laser guided munitions and having the ability to use it, or another laser, for range finding makes perfect sense for tactical reasons but I have no idea if that functionality exists.  As far as the lock on the target it seems to be a contrast lock just like the TCS system I ran used and that was a very solid lock, so this more modern system would likely  be even better at it than a system from the mid-80's.     As far as the size the target, all that is required is good contrast (at least that was what it was on the TCS) and the size of the object as shown is more than enough for the system to hold the lock.  We had a 10x and I believe 15x  (long tiime ago) magnification so I assume the ATFLIR  has something similar so a large, white bird at relatively close range, flying over a dark ocean would make a fine target.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2018 at 2:01 AM, Merc14 said:

As far as the lock on the target it seems to be a contrast lock just like the TCS system I ran used and that was a very solid lock, so this more modern system would likely  be even better at it than a system from the mid-80's.

Is that something similar to what is being used in some drones these days?

 

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fila said:

Is that something similar to what is being used in some drones these days?

 

It is pretty old technology nowadays so I would guess yes

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2018 at 2:01 AM, Merc14 said:

We had a 10x and I believe 15x  (long tiime ago) magnification so I assume the ATFLIR  has something similar so a large, white bird at relatively close range, flying over a dark ocean would make a fine target.  

The video claims to be only 1x zoom.., and the object is 5 miles away. This would make the object much larger than a bird.

For the camera to register a bird sized object with 1x zoom.., it would need to be much closer. I am guessing within less than 1 mile depending on the cameras sensor. But even the worlds best camera would not be able to detect a bird 5 miles away at 1x zoom.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Fila said:

The video claims to be only 1x zoom..

Oh good grief.  Fila, this is beyond ridiculously wrong.  Are you trolling?  I dearly hope so.  But either way, this is a complete waste of time - you obviously have not a clue about any of this - of course it is *not* 1x zoom.  If you can't see that just by using common sense, well, I doubt you have any.  Also, you have NOT visited the links supplied, so Stereo's suggestion that you are researching nothing, is spot on.

 

Welcome to my Ignore list - only a select few make it there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Oh good grief.  Fila, this is beyond ridiculously wrong.  Are you trolling?  I dearly hope so.  But either way, this is a complete waste of time - you obviously have not a clue about any of this - of course it is *not* 1x zoom.  If you can't see that just by using common sense, well, I doubt you have any.  Also, you have NOT visited the links supplied, so Stereo's suggestion that you are researching nothing, is spot on.

 

Welcome to my Ignore list - only a select few make it there.

Chillax bro. The source claims 1x zoom. Can we just discuss the facts rather than name calling?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2018 at 11:28 PM, Merc14 said:

It is pretty old technology nowadays so I would guess yes

I don't think being old technolgy has any sway to whether or not this is the same system being used. Although the technology you are referring to is old.., it does not mean its the same just because its old. That's okay though, thanks anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fila said:

I don't think being old technolgy has any sway to whether or not this is the same system being used.

It is not the same system, I can guarantee that

Quote

Although the technology you are referring to is old.., it does not mean its the same just because its old.

 I have no idea what you mean with the above. 

Quote

That's okay though, thanks anyway.

:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Merc14 said:

It is not the same system, I can guarantee that

Thanks....

7 hours ago, Merc14 said:

 I have no idea what you mean with the above. 

We wanted to know more about how it tracks targets. I asked would it be something similar to this.., that relies on camera footage.., rather than a range finder to track targets.

You replied the technology is old.., so.., you would guess yes.

This sounds like you are using the fact that the technology is old.., as the reason for it to be the same. I am saying that just because the tech is old.., doesn't mean its the same.

Edited by Fila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2018 at 6:35 PM, Fila said:

Chillax bro. The source claims 1x zoom. Can we just discuss the facts rather than name calling?

False. You've already been told you are clueless. Go learn.

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.