US Navy UFO video

[pzkpfw]

5 hours ago, Robert Wilson said:

Insects are known as a very resistant/robust creatures, many of them can withstand temperatures, pressures and G forces which are much greater than what people can withstand.

The speed is not a factor, when you fly inside a Boeing 747 airplane you fly at about 540 mi/h (or 870 km/hr),  did you ever felt uncomfortable with that? So is an insect.

 

Ever been in a 747 and have a ships' radar pick you out?

[Robert Wilson]

8 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

Ever been in a 747 and have a ships' radar pick you out?

I've already addressed that, why wouldn't you read the thread?

The problem is that you assume that what they saw on radar is what you see in this video, but that assumption is not necessarily true. The pilot reported that he saw a white spot in the water, it could easily be a large fish flock:

https://st2.depositphotos.com/2927537/6761/i/950/depositphotos_67614001-stock-photo-fish-flock-jumping.jpg

Or a flock of bird :

https://www.shltrip.com/sitebuilder/images/8s_many_birds_in_air_IMG_2209-1008x769.jpg

Isn't it a more reasonable explanation for what they saw on the radar?

As I said before, the pilot stated that he did not see the UFO from his aircraft window, he saw it Only on the camera screen.

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by Robert Wilson

[Robert Wilson]

See also this:

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/pentagon-ufos-to-the-stars-academy-ttsa-ufo-media-frenzy

 

[Robert Wilson]

Hi all,

Anyone still reads here?  

I opened a new thread with some new proves to my claim:

https://www.metabunk.org/robert-”gimbal-bug”-theory.t10960

See my last messages there.

Best regards.

 

[Moontanman]

4 hours ago, Robert Wilson said:

Hi all,

Anyone still reads here?  

I opened a new thread with some new proves to my claim:

https://www.metabunk.org/robert-”gimbal-bug”-theory.t10960

See my last messages there.

Best regards.

 

Why don't you display the non infrared film? 

[Robert Wilson]

38 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Why don't you display the non infrared film? 

I don't know of such video, do you have a link to give?

Do you have any proof that it's from the same event? Same day and same hour?

Because I saw an interview with the pilot David Fravor and he said that he did not see the "UFO" from his airplane window, so it will be very strange if a daylight camera did see it.

 

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, Robert Wilson said:

I don't know of such video, do you have a link to give?

Do you have any proof that it's from the same event? Same day and same hour?

Because I saw an interview with the pilot David Fravor and he said that he did not see the "UFO" from his airplane window, so it will be very strange if a daylight camera did see it.

 

It did or was seen in normal light, I'll have to watch some more of these videos, to be honest I am tiring of watching the same footage over and over and seeing nothing but a blob... Either we give credence to the eyewitnesses of we don't don't. Pictures and video fall into two categories too good to be real or too bad to be considered... I'll look for it and post it with the time stamps.... 

In this encounter the pilots cleary saw something:

https://www.livescience.com/61233-navy-pilots-ufo-sightings.html

Unless your bug is flying into frame...

https://youtu.be/as73FeKi2ls

https://youtu.be/0Fd6ssvcBoM

 

This one is the one I thought switched from ir to normal but I was mistaken but again the object moves out of frame faster than the equipment can keep up, none of this screams aliens space craft but it doesn't exactly scream bug on the windshield either... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9D8dzl4zGk

[Eise]

It definitely looks like a speck of dust (or bug?) in the camera. I've some experience with photography, telescopes, microscopes, and this is very similar. Of course it is not on the objective, but somewhere else in the light path, maybe on the sensor. This depiction of course is not correct:

Spoiler

 

From the videos I definitely do not get the impression of something flying there. 

[Moontanman]

5 hours ago, Eise said:

It definitely looks like a speck of dust (or bug?) in the camera. I've some experience with photography, telescopes, microscopes, and this is very similar. Of course it is not on the objective, but somewhere else in the light path, maybe on the sensor. This depiction of course is not correct:

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 

 

From the videos I definitely do not get the impression of something flying there. 

You didn't see where it came into frame from the right at what appeared to be high speed and the excitement in the voices of the pilots as they tried to get a lock on it? 

[Eise]

Just now, Moontanman said:

You didn't see where it came into frame from the right at what appeared to be high speed and the excitement in the voices of the pilots as they tried to get a lock on it? 

With a magnification of 10 times (or more) a walking bug, or even worse, a free flying dust particle or flying insect landing on a sensor or so, would also show that.

The question really seems to me: did they see this just through one instrument, or through more, working on different principles, or even better, did they see it with the naked eye, or a simple eye piece?

And even Hayek is not convinced that pilots are such good observers (I read recently, but I do not remember where). If I hear the pilot's excitement I do not hear any critical voice to check carefully what they see. My conclusion: too weak testimony to build any useful hypothesis. Did you apply Occam's razor? What is more probable:

- a UFO really flying there, doing incredible things

- an instrument with some dust particles or even an insect in it.

If you know of any additional, independent observations from the same event, let us know.

[lightpanther]

Hello. I have been following this topic and also wondered if it is a bug on the lens. However, in interviews, the commanding officer of the strike group has specifically said that the objects were simultaneously tracked visually and by radar. Indeed, the sortie existed in the first place because they were sent to the location to investigate anomalous targets radar had been picking up in the vicinity for two weeks. I cannot reasonably see how this combination of events can be insects on the sensing equipment unless the military pilots are simply lying.

As to the "legs" on the bug....yes they could *conceivably* be legs on a bug...and they could also be nothing of the sort. The image just is not clear enough for that kind of conclusion and that is just creating a "canals on Mars" problem.

All the same, I would like to see someone who has expertise on this particular type of fighter sensor equipment give their view on whether or not it is even possible for an insect to be inside the system. I would assume that an insect would have to be inside the equipment housing and not just on an external surface, as it is difficult to see how it could possibly sustain itself in that position.

Does a forward seeking infrared sensor even give a heat report for something that would be inside the equipment body? Again, without proper, technically accurate and informationally rich answers from those with direct knowledge of this particular type of equipment, speculations here cannot be considered conclusive.

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by lightpanther

[mistermack]

I find it telling that in the days of the smart phone, when most people have quick access to a good camera, there is a distinct lack of photos of these UFOs. Back in the old days when nobody carried cameras, there seemed to be loads more sightings.

In this sighting, I find it odd that there was a visual sighting, but no pictures recorded. Do modern planes go up with no cameras? I have a very good one in my car, and it cost about a tenner. If the US Navy are short, they are welcome to borrow it.

[studiot]

Out in my garden this afternnon, picking giant peaches for Mr Dahl, I spotted this little fellow flitting about amongst the 2 foot butterflies.

He came to rest for a moment on a gardens seat so I snapped him quickly.

 

 

[Robert Wilson]

The link that I gave is not available any more  

Sorry that I don't have time to respond now, I'll just say that from what I read in other forums there is a lot of confusing in the reports between several different event that happened in different times and with different pilots.

As I said (not sure that in this thread) what will convince me is a film of this particular event taken from the second airplane. It's very strange that they where 2 aircraft there but only one of them saw this 'Object' in it's camera. I want to see this particular event from the other aircraft's camera, and to see that the object moves exactly the same way second by second like in this video.

I want so give you another strong evidence that shows that this 'Object' is probably not external to the aircraft.

I took several frames from this video and I just toggled between them, see how although the aircraft changes it's orientation, the 'Object' stays exactly in the same position, as you expect from an insect that sits on the lens (inside the pod of course, not exposed to the wind and the cold).

Example 1:

https://i.ibb.co/VWjFPMb/Toggle-1-2.gif

Example 2:

https://i.ibb.co/zx2WhbP/Toggle-3-4.gif

 

Also, it's to stable (when you watch the full video) and too blurry to be an external object in front of the plane.

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Robert Wilson

[lightpanther]

There are three videos of interest, imo. What is called the "gimbal" video, what is called the "tic tac" video, and what is called the "go fast" video. The one you are discussing here is the so-called gimbal footage. I strongly suspect that what you are calling insect legs are in fact asymmetrical artefacts of the infrared tracking. It is clear from watching the video that the object rotates independently of the aircraft's attitude.

The gimbal video is not of the Nimitz incident, which is the "tic tac" event. As I said above, for that event, objects were radar observed by the USS Princeton intermittently for a two week period prior to this sortie. During the sortie, commander David Fravor had prolonged visual contact with the object as did his accompanying aircraft. They did not succeed in getting a tracking capture. A subsequent aircraft launch after Fravor had landed captured the tracking video.

I am no UFO nut, but I'm also no debunker. This cannot be an insect/insects if these military people aren't lying. It also cannot be a conventional aircraft because of its behavior. This then leads to the following possibility set, imo:

1) High capability technology of our (human) own, perhaps being (surreptitiously) tested to determine real world pilot response (but that's a bit of a conspiracy theory and not very plausible, imo)

2) A natural phenomenon of this world of a form we don't understand (the most likely, imo)

3) Technology or phenomena associated with a source that is not human and not from here 

4) Carefully contrived hoax with military involvement and consent (again, has the "conspiracy theory" problem).

Edited October 15, 2019 by lightpanther

[Moontanman]

Guys, I am not arguing this is a alien space craft, but the videos combined with the testimony of the pilots, the CIC operators on the ship, and the videos does lend far more credence the object or objects were external to the aircraft and not something inside or on the lens of the flir... Personally I think this is pretty weak evidence to hang aliens on, Drones of some sort injected into the training scenario makes much more sense..  

 

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, lightpanther said:

There are three videos of interest, imo.

Those videos are of no use to me. They might mean something to another navy pilot, but all I can see is blobs. 

My ten-pound dash cam knocks spots off that fuzz. I'm sure that those planes have conventional cameras fitted. Why wouldn't they? If I can get crystal clear pictures for a tenner, what could the navy get for their sort of money?

On the other hand, if I wanted to spread disinformation, that's just the sort of image I'd use.

Edited October 15, 2019 by mistermack

[Robert Wilson]

25 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Guys, I am not arguing this is a alien space craft, but the videos combined with the testimony of the pilots, the CIC operators on the ship, and the videos does lend far more credence the object or objects were external to the aircraft and not something inside or on the lens of the FLIR... Personally I think this is pretty weak evidence to hang aliens on, Drones of some sort injected into the training scenario makes much more sense..  

 

As I said, it looks like there is a lot of confusing between several different events, it's not clear at all which testimonies are related to this particular even that I'm talking about. They may have seen something in the radar, which can easily be a flock of birds of flock of fish:

 

You can't say for sure that the target that they saw on the radar is also what you see on the FLIR screen.

Did you see the two examples that I showed from the video?

Example 1:

https://i.ibb.co/VWjFPMb/Toggle-1-2.gif

Example 2:

https://i.ibb.co/zx2WhbP/Toggle-3-4.gif

How does if fits to an external object?

 

[lightpanther]

40 minutes ago, Robert Wilson said:

As I said, it looks like there is a lot of confusing between several different events, it's not clear at all which testimonies are related to this particular even that I'm talking about. They may have seen something in the radar, which can easily be a flock of birds of flock of fish:

 

You can't say for sure that the target that they saw on the radar is also what you see on the FLIR screen.

Did you see the two examples that I showed from the video?

Example 1:

https://i.ibb.co/VWjFPMb/Toggle-1-2.gif

Example 2:

https://i.ibb.co/zx2WhbP/Toggle-3-4.gif

How does if fits to an external object?

 

This was not part of the Nimitz incident at all.

However, It does seem that the gimbal object may remain in the same attitude when the tracking aircraft makes a slight attitude adjustment, but I don't think that the adjustment is sufficient for what is seen on the video to be that clear cut. It would need a larger correction in attitude to be certain, and we don't have one, because when there is a larger correction, both objects are in rotation.

 

[Robert Wilson]

24 minutes ago, lightpanther said:

This was not part of the Nimitz incident at all.

However, It does seem that the gimbal object may remain in the same attitude when the tracking aircraft makes a slight attitude adjustment, but I don't think that the adjustment is sufficient for what is seen on the video to be that clear cut. It would need a larger correction in attitude to be certain, and we don't have one, because when there is a larger correction, both objects are in rotation.

 

Who said that it's part of the Nimitz incident?

Look again especially at "Example 2" that I gave, if you watch it on a big screen, in a dark room, then you see clear enough the horizon line behind the clouds (it looks like a sea) and it's perfectly correlated with the artificial horizon line of the aircraft, but the 'Object' stays exactly in the same position.

Sorry, an external object will not behave this way, it's very clear that it's attached to the aircraft.

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Robert Wilson

[lightpanther]

14 minutes ago, Robert Wilson said:

Who said that it's part of the Nimitz incident?

Look again especially at "Example 2" that I gave, if you watch it on a big screen, in a dark room, then you see clear enough the horizon line behind the clouds (it looks like a sea) and it's perfectly correlated with the artificial horizon line of the aircraft, but the 'Object' stays exactly in the same position.

Sorry, an external object will not behave this way, it's very clear that it's attached to the aircraft.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Robert Wilson said:

Who said that it's part of the Nimitz incident?

Look again especially at "Example 2" that I gave, if you watch it on a big screen, in a dark room, then you see clear enough the horizon line behind the clouds (it looks like a sea) and it's perfectly correlated with the artificial horizon line of the aircraft, but the 'Object' stays exactly in the same position.

Sorry, an external object will not behave this way, it's very clear that it's attached to the aircraft.

 

You said:

"You can't say for sure that the target that they saw on the radar is also what you see on the FLIR screen."

The target on radar referred to is part of the Nimitz incident and so has no bearing on the gimbal footage.

I don't need to look at your captures again, because I already acknowledged a change in attitude of the tracking aircraft. It is possible that it is a piece of particulate matter on the sensory array, but without informed input from a Raytheon engineer (and I wouldn't hold your breath since it is defense hardware) we are just speculating when we imagine that this is even possible.

My comments refer to the possibility that this is an amorphous heat and light signature external to the aircraft, in which case the  apparent shape on the sensor may be more in the way of artefact than real, and if that is the case, I don't think the attitude adjustment was sufficient to conclude that the object was not in external space.

Edited October 15, 2019 by lightpanther

[Edgard Neuman]

On 10/9/2019 at 12:10 AM, Robert Wilson said:

Hi all,

I would like to refer to the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1THwiaXZfzA

which implies that what we see here is some kind of an "aliens spaceship" from out of space.

I think that this is Ridiculous.

Check minute 0:50 and minute 1:15 in the video - that is the so called "UFO" that they saw.

I claim that this is just a small insect on the camera lens, and I don't understand how people can be so blind and not see it.

The aircraft's infrared camera sits inside a pod as you can see here:

https://www.raytheon.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/rtn_475606.jpg

The insect probably got inside when maintenance was done on the aircraft , and it sits either on the camera lens, or on the inside window of the pod through which the camera looks out (and obviously, the insect is not exposed to the outside wind).

That explains why it is SO STABLE in relation to aircraft sight (an external object like another airplane will NEVER be that stable) and it also explains why it is So Blurry... that is because it is adjacent to the camera lens so it is out of focus... Also, take again a good look at the video, you can see pretty clearly the Legs of that insect! can't you see it?

It looks like an insect, it moves like an insect, and that's exactly what it is! just an insect!

Also, why do they shows us the same video from the same aircraft all the time? Where is the video from the same event taken from the OTHER aircraft? let's see it and compare between the two videos. If it's really an external object to the airplanes, then we should see it moving EXACTLY the same way second by second in both videos! So where is the video from the second plane? Or maybe the camera of the other aircraft just didn't see the object? As expected if I'm right.

Also, I don't know what they saw on the radar, but from my experience, especially in a sea environment, radars have LOT of false alerts for many things - Bird bands, fish bands jumping out of the water, sea turtles and even just sea waves. I think that what you see in the infrared's camera screen is NOT what they saw on the radar.

I have no doubt a that what you see in this video is just a small insect walking on the camera's lens.

Your opinion please.
 

I don't think the insect theory works... the object is in the center of the view because the camera has a pursuit system that detects objects and centers it.. (the two lines right next to the object are indicator of that system state) .. At the beginning the lines are bigger because the object is not in it, so the detection area is big. Once the system catch the object, it puts it in the center. In other videos you see the pilots trying to "catch" the object, meaning they orient the camera to it until the pursuit system takes control and start to automatically orient the view to maintain the object right in the center of the image. 

Personally, I thought these object could simply be light plastic objects carried by the wind.. a simple plastic bag could fly as fast as the wind.. and we don't know the distance and the scale of the objects. I also suppose in some specific conditions a very steady wind could carry and sustain a light object flying straight near the surface for a relatively long period.

Edited October 15, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[lightpanther]

Edgard, you make a very good point. The object is dead center, so it is actively being tracked. An object can't be on the array and tracked by the array simultaneously. Although we don't see the gimbal object acquired, the "go fast" object is definitely acquired during the video.

[Moontanman]

Like most UFO sightings of the modern era this suffers greatly from eyewitness/photography fatigue. We all know, or so we are told that eyewitnesses are not as reliable as many think. I've even seen J. Allen Hynek being quoted as saying that military observers aren't particularly good observers and yet Hynek changed his mind about UFOs due to Military sighting, at least in part, and went from debunker to believer. Photos always suffer from the too good to be true or not good enough to be considered syndrome, everyone seems to be polarized with no middle ground. 

There are inexplicable sightings with an embarrassment of information, the air force has been guilty of simply not wanting to admit they might not know something and giving out explanations that fail utterly to explain anything and i mean completely fabricating info to try and explain away incidents. Sadly the believers have done the same things the fog of signal to noise has only gotten worse and our modern technology has rendered photos and videos as meaningless simply due to the old too good to be true or too bad to be considered paradox. 

It's to the point now I'm not sure I would believe a live news broadcast that showed one landing in the middle of the super bowl... 

[Robert Wilson]

2 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

I don't think the insect theory works... the object is in the center of the view because the camera has a pursuit system that detects objects and centers it.. (the two lines right next to the object are indicator of that system state) .. At the beginning the lines are bigger because the object is not in it, so the detection area is big. Once the system catch the object, it puts it in the center. In other videos you see the pilots trying to "catch" the object, meaning they orient the camera to it until the pursuit system takes control and start to automatically orient the view to maintain the object right in the center of the image. 

Of course that this object is being tracked, how exactly does it contradict the Insect theory?

The system see an object on the screen and it's tracking it, it doesn't know if it's a flying airplane or if it's a bug on the lens that looks "flying" when it Integrates with the view behind it. It's sees a spot in the frame and it's following it.

Please explain why doesn't it move when the airplane rotate? Why the horizon line (that you can see behind the clouds) move perfectly in correlation with the artificial horizon of the aircraft, but the object stays Exactly in the same possition?

https://i.ibb.co/zx2WhbP/Toggle-3-4.gif

Only object that is attached to the airplane can explain that.

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Robert Wilson