US Navy UFO video

[lightpanther]

13 hours ago, Robert Wilson said:

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.

 

Robert,

It doesn't work that way.

If you look at Raytheon's own material and specification for the ATFLIR, you will see that the entire front pod structure, including the external housing, rotates to track the object. It is literally *not possible* for this to be a "bug on the lens" scenario. That is an object out in external space that has been acquired by the tracking system. My own view, as I articulated above, is that it is an amorphous heat and light signature, which is why the system is struggling to get sufficient range data. I also replied to your point about it seeming to stay in the same position. What you are looking at is mainly artefactual IR flare from the object, imo, and the attitude adjustment is not sufficient to change this (think in terms of rotating your camera lens when there is a lens flare in the frame). Only later, when the object itself clearly rotates, do we see a sufficient change.

Please understand that the tracking system could NOT acquire this object if it was attached to the system.

Edited October 16, 2019 by lightpanther

[Edgard Neuman]

19 hours ago, Robert Wilson said:

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.

 

In your gif, it kind of moves a little... if the thing was a distant disk, it seems still plausible
But, in the case of a insect what we need to know is the orientation of the camera relative to the plane.. if the insect is inside the glass thing, the camera wouldn't have to move at all.
Maybe some of the numbers on the screen are the angles of the camera.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Edgard Neuman

[Robert Wilson]

11 hours ago, lightpanther said:

Robert,

It doesn't work that way.

If you look at Raytheon's own material and specification for the ATFLIR, you will see that the entire front pod structure, including the external housing, rotates to track the object. It is literally *not possible* for this to be a "bug on the lens" scenario. That is an object out in external space that has been acquired by the tracking system. My own view, as I articulated above, is that it is an amorphous heat and light signature, which is why the system is struggling to get sufficient range data. I also replied to your point about it seeming to stay in the same position. What you are looking at is mainly artefactual IR flare from the object, imo, and the attitude adjustment is not sufficient to change this (think in terms of rotating your camera lens when there is a lens flare in the frame). Only later, when the object itself clearly rotates, do we see a sufficient change.

Please understand that the tracking system could NOT acquire this object if it was attached to the system.

lightpanther,

1. Let's suppose that the insect decided to rest on the center of the Pod's window (on it's inner side of course) why wouldn't the scenario that we see in this video describe it? 

2. About the movement of the pod (that you can see on the top-center of the display) it can happen because of the tracking algorithm that got confused and concluded that the object moves to the right, because as you can see the tracking aircraft is turning to the left toward the object, but the object stays in it's place so it looks as it's comming from left to right, so the tracking system makes the necessary corrections to bring it in front on the plane.

3. Also even in case that the insect was not in the center of the window, I read in another place that the internal camera inside the pod can also move independently from the pod movements, so it could change it's position in order to make the insect be centered on the frame.

4. Another point, we see on the display that the camera was in a digital zoom x2 ("Z 2.0" on the top-left) that's mean that you see only part of the full frame, so I don't know how exactly does it works, but the camera could digitally shift the zoomed frame up/down/left/right to make the insect centered.

5. I don't think that it's flare, I saw several examples of IR flare and it's not looks even a bit similar. The glare looks like a long, narrow beams that are coming out of the object, which is not what we see here. Also the contours of the object looks strong enough that it's clear to me that we are looking at the object itself, and not on it's glare.
 

5 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:

In your gif, it kind of moves a little... if the thing was a distant disk, it seems still plausible
But, in the case of a insect what we need to know is the orientation of the camera relative to the plane.. if the insect is inside the glass thing, the camera wouldn't have to move at all. Maybe some of the numbers on the screen are the angles of the camera.

It's pretty encouraging to see someone who got more negative points than mine  

See my reply to lightpanther. Also I don't think that we need to know what is the orientation of the camera relative to the plane, because we see that the horizon (the real horizon) changes it's angle, so if it was a real external target there it should had have also change it's angle exactly the same.
 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Robert Wilson

[lightpanther]

59 minutes ago, Robert Wilson said:

lightpanther,

1. Let's suppose that the insect decided to rest on the center of the Pod's window (on it's inner side of course) why wouldn't the scenario that we see in this video describe it? 

That's special pleading. The object is centred because the tracking has centred it.

 

Quote

2. About the movement of the pod (that you can see on the top-center of the display) it can happen because of the tracking algorithm that got confused and concluded that the object moves to the right, because as you can see the tracking aircraft is turning to the left toward the object, but the object stays in it's place so it looks as it's comming from left to right, so the tracking system makes the necessary corrections to bring it in front on the plane.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. The tracking array is on a 3-axis gimbal, so naturally it will compensate for movements of the aircraft or object to keep it acquired.

3. Also even in case that the insect was not in the center of the window, I read in another place that the internal camera inside the pod can also move independently from the pod movements, so it could change it's position in order to make the insect be centered on the frame.

First of all, the object is much hotter than the surround and therefore not an insect, because insects are cold blooded and other than moths or butterflies are at ambient temperature. The IR tracker is in white = hot mode. Your "insect" is much hotter than ambient meaning that it has a strong infrared presence. Also, the aircraft is at 25000 feet as you can see bottom right of the HUD...no insect would survive. The same would apply to a particle on the optics or sensor array. Where did you see this information about the camera / sensor? It doesn't make sense to me since the pod already has a 3-axis gimbal. Can you please link me to what you are talking about with the camera movements, and I will assess that when I see it. The details I gave you are directly from the manufacturers of the equipment.

4. Another point, we see on the display that the camera was in a digital zoom x2 ("Z 2.0" on the top-left) that's mean that you see only part of the full frame, so I don't know how exactly does it works, but the camera could digitally shift the zoomed frame up/down/left/right to make the insect centered.

The fact that the target is acquired in the first place means that the sensor can  track it and center it. This is not altered by the zoom function and has nothing to do with it.

5. I don't think that it's flare, I saw several examples of IR flare and it's not looks even a bit similar. The glare looks like a long, narrow beams that are coming out of the object, which is not what we see here. Also the contours of the object looks strong enough that it's clear to me that we are looking at the object itself, and not on it's glare.

I disagree. The object is much hotter than ambient and shows the characteristic asymmetry and spikes of IR flare. I am not saying that it is JUST glare. But I am suspecting it to be a non-solid object.
 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by lightpanther

[Robert Wilson]

3 hours ago, lightpanther said:

That's special pleading. The object is centered because the tracking has centered it.

That's a guess, you can't know why it in the center, maybe it just happened to go there, you don't have the beginning of the video to see what exactly happened.

 

3 hours ago, lightpanther said:

I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. The tracking array is on a 3-axis gimbal, so naturally it will compensate for movements of the aircraft or object to keep it acquired.

I'm just saying that even if you will take an insect and glue it to the center of the pod's window during flight then there is a big chance that you will get exactly the same behavior that you see in this video. The tracking algorithm will see the insect that you attached to the window, and it will try to track it like it's an external object on the background of the sky and the clouds. Why shouldn't it track it? How should it know that it's not an external target? It sees something hot on the background of the sky and it's trying to track it like it was an airplane.

 

3 hours ago, lightpanther said:

First of all, the object is much hotter than the surround and therefore not an insect.

You are guessing, you can't know by the colors in the video if the object is "much hotter" than the surrounding. In many infrared cameras the image processing gives (in "White Hot" mode) a black color to the coldest pixels in the frame,  a white color to the hottest pixels, and all the other pixels get grey levels between. So even if the insect temperature is just 0.5 degrees hotter than the window it will be white (or black in the "Black Hot" mode).

 

3 hours ago, lightpanther said:

The aircraft is at 25000 feet as you can see bottom right of the HUD...no insect would survive.

1. You don't know what was the temperature inside the pod, you forget that it's a closed box... if the aircraft rose to 25,000 feet it's not necessarily says that immediately within a second or two the temperature inside the pod drops below zero, and don't forget that there are many electronic systems inside the pod that produce heat.

2. There are stories of people who survived inside a wheel well of a plane (a landing gear compartment) so an insect will not survive it? Even for a few minutes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wheel-well_stowaway_flights

 

3 hours ago, lightpanther said:

insects are cold blooded and other than moths or butterflies are at ambient temperature.

1. Many insects can produce body heat:

https://asknature.org/strategy/muscles-create-heat-to-warm-nest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_thermoregulation

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28889866

2. It's logic that an insect inside the pod will be hotter than the cold window that it's attached to which is exposed to the frozen wind outside.

 

3 hours ago, lightpanther said:

Where did you see this information about the camera/sensor? It doesn't make sense to me since the pod already has a 3-axis gimbal. Can you please link me to what you are talking about with the camera movements, and I will assess that when I see it.

Here:

https://www.metabunk.org/nyt-gimbal-video-of-u-s-navy-jet-encounter-with-unknown-object.t9333

"Here's the type of motion we are talking about rotation, and tracking on the exterior. This will be combined with internal camera movements to keep the horizon level."

 

3 hours ago, lightpanther said:

I disagree. I am not saying that it is JUST glare. But I am suspecting it to be a non-solid object.

Well, I also disagree with you and I think that it is solid. I saw several examples of flare and what we see in this video is not even close.

See this two pictures that I created to show the different between the object and it's flare:

The black shape that we see in the "Gimbal Video" is too massive to be a flare, and it has a very clear shape.

It looks very solid to me, and I don't think that it's a flare, sorry.

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Robert Wilson

[Moontanman]

On 10/17/2019 at 12:52 AM, Robert Wilson said:

1. Many insects can produce body heat:

https://asknature.org/strategy/muscles-create-heat-to-warm-nest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_thermoregulation

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28889866

2. It's logic that an insect inside the pod will be hotter than the cold window that it's attached to which is exposed to the frozen wind outside.

 

 

No it is not logical that an insect would be uniformly warm, they are regional endotherm and only keep small parts of their bodies above ambient temps. From your own link. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_thermoregulation

Quote

These endothermic insects are better described as regional heterotherms because they are not uniformly endothermic. When heat is being produced, different temperatures are maintained in different parts of their bodies, for example, moths generate heat in their thorax prior to flight but the abdomen remains relatively cool.[2]

Moreover the thing we are talking about is not just uniformly warm the structures you are calling legs are the same temps as the rest which in something as small as an insect would improbable to say the least. Exposed to the cold window the insect would be cold, the cube square law would require a stationary insect exposed to freezing temps to be... wait for it... frozen... 

[lightpanther]

On 10/17/2019 at 5:52 AM, Robert Wilson said:

That's a guess, you can't know why it in the center, maybe it just happened to go there, you don't have the beginning of the video to see what exactly happened.

No, it's not a guess. The object is DEAD centre...meaning it's acquired.

 

I'm just saying that even if you will take an insect and glue it to the center of the pod's window during flight then there is a big chance that you will get exactly the same behavior that you see in this video. The tracking algorithm will see the insect that you attached to the window, and it will try to track it like it's an external object on the background of the sky and the clouds. Why shouldn't it track it? How should it know that it's not an external target? It sees something hot on the background of the sky and it's trying to track it like it was an airplane.

Tracking isn't physically performed by "the algorithm" but by the sensor array. If the object is not free to move separately from the sensor array, then it cannot be tracked.

 

You are guessing, you can't know by the colors in the video if the object is "much hotter" than the surrounding. In many infrared cameras the image processing gives (in "White Hot" mode) a black color to the coldest pixels in the frame,  a white color to the hottest pixels, and all the other pixels get grey levels between. So even if the insect temperature is just 0.5 degrees hotter than the window it will be white (or black in the "Black Hot" mode).

If it is hot enough to give IR artefacts (your "insect legs") then it is substantially hotter than ambient. This is academic anyway, since insects would be at ambient.

 

1. You don't know what was the temperature inside the pod, you forget that it's a closed box... if the aircraft rose to 25,000 feet it's not necessarily says that immediately within a second or two the temperature inside the pod drops below zero, and don't forget that there are many electronic systems inside the pod that produce heat.

You are clutching at straws. First of all, an insect has to be inside the housing. Second, if the pod is not pressurized (and I see no reason why it would be as it is not designed to contain anything living), then even IF an insect got in there, it would be dead. This also assumes that Defense equipment is so badly designed that an insect could get into the sensor path of a high end tracking and targeting system in the first place...another pretty implausible notion. I mean, even your consumer level Canon or Nikon lens architecture has the wit to prevent that...

 

2. There are stories of people who survived inside a wheel well of a plane (a landing gear compartment) so an insect will not survive it? Even for a few minutes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wheel-well_stowaway_flights

The vast majority of people who try this of course die, which you are neglecting to mention. In other words, this is special pleading as well.

 

 

Quote

1. Many insects can produce body heat:

https://asknature.org/strategy/muscles-create-heat-to-warm-nest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_thermoregulation

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28889866

2. It's logic that an insect inside the pod will be hotter than the cold window that it's attached to which is exposed to the frozen wind outside.

No it isn't. It would be the same temperature as ambient.

 

Here:

https://www.metabunk.org/nyt-gimbal-video-of-u-s-navy-jet-encounter-with-unknown-object.t9333

"Here's the type of motion we are talking about rotation, and tracking on the exterior. This will be combined with internal camera movements to keep the horizon level."

Metabunk is a private hobbyhorse site, not an authoritative source on the Raytheon ATFLIR system. Raytheon are the appropriate source to consult on their own system.

"This will be combined with internal camera movements" Unless you can show me Raytheon-sourced documentation suggesting that there is an internal camera system maneuvered independently of the pod front housing, this assertion is meaningless, as it consists of amateurs guessing about equipment they don't have direct involvement with.

Well, I also disagree with you and I think that it is solid. I saw several examples of flare and what we see in this video is not even close.

See this two pictures that I created to show the different between the object and it's flare:

The black shape that we see in the "Gimbal Video" is too massive to be a flare, and it has a very clear shape.

It looks very solid to me, and I don't think that it's a flare, sorry.

I'm sorry too, but I am not seeing any demonstration from these pictures that the "insect legs" aren't artefact spikes in the IR. The aircraft architecture can clearly be seen in the aviation shots. Also, I strongly suspect that to be more metabunk material. Please supply authoritative sources.

Also, having now read some of the posts on that thread you linked me to...you do understand that they are basically arguing my case and not yours? I don't readily agree with his conclusion that is is an external conventional aircraft...but he has correctly grasped that it is external.
 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by lightpanther

[Robert Wilson]

4 hours ago, lightpanther said:

The fact that the target is acquired in the first place means that the sensor can  track it and center it. This is not altered by the zoom function and has nothing to do with it.

Sorry but I don't have time to investigate this to the deep now, let's face it we are both not experts about how it works, we need to find someone who actually works with this system who can tell us if the infrared camera can move inside the pod, or if the algorithm can move the picture a little while it's in zoom mode. If the object was acquired while the picture was in zoom x2 (meaning that you see only part of the full frame) then theoretically the algorithm could move the zoomed area left/right/up/down to bring the object to the middle.

And, there is also the possibility that just by chance the bug landed on the middle of the window, which you know it's not that big...

 

4 hours ago, lightpanther said:

Tracking isn't physically performed by "the algorithm" but by the sensor array. If the object is not free to move separately from the sensor array, then it cannot be tracked.

Again, we need to ask an ATFLIR expert to know, but as far as I know the type of tracking that we see in this video is done by an algorithm that follows the object in the image itself. So if the algorithm looks at the picture and think that the object move from left to right, then it will send the Pod a command to move physically to the right to keep the object in the middle.

The tracking algorithm sees a hot spot in the frame, and it sends signals to the pod to move here or to move there, it doesn't know if that hot spot is an external target of if it's on the window.

 

4 hours ago, lightpanther said:

Insects would be at ambient temperature.

 

I think that both of you, you and Moontanman, are doing lot of assumptions which are not necessarily true about the temperature of the bug.

Look at this picture, as you know trees are not producing heat, do you think that the deer and the trees has the same temperature?

 

 

And let's look at some frames from the 'UFO' video itself, do you think that the clouds are Hot as the object?  

You also forget that the pod has lot of Hot electronic equipment inside, so if the insect was first on this hot equipment, and only then he flew to the window, then it would still be hot.

 

4 hours ago, lightpanther said:

First of all, an insect has to be inside the housing. This also assumes that Defense equipment is so badly designed that an insect could get into the sensor path of a high end tracking and targeting system in the first place...another pretty implausible notion. I mean, even your consumer level Canon or Nikon lens architecture has the wit to prevent that...

 

The pod is a large tank with lot of equipment inside, many times the technicians open the pod in order to do maintenance works. When the pod is open, what prevents insects and bugs from going inside and walks between the infrared camera and the pod's window?

 

4 hours ago, lightpanther said:

Even IF an insect got in there, it would be dead. The vast majority of people who try this of course die, which you are neglecting to mention. In other words, this is special pleading as well.

If almost 25% of the people that tried that survived, then you can be sure that at least 50% of the insects in this conditions will survive. And again I remind you that it's hot inside the pod because of all the hot electronic equipment that it carries, so an insect inside will not suffer from cold, that's for sure.

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Robert Wilson

[lightpanther]

1 hour ago, Robert Wilson said:

Sorry but I don't have time to investigate this to the deep now, let's face it we are both not experts about how it works, we need to find someone who actually works with this system who can tell us if the infrared camera can move inside the pod, or if the algorithm can move the picture a little while it's in zoom mode. If the object was acquired while the picture was in zoom x2 (meaning that you see only part of the full frame) then theoretically the algorithm could move the zoomed area left/right/up/down to bring the object to the middle.

And, there is also the possibility that just by chance the bug landed on the middle of the window, which you know it's not that big...

The fact that an expert on the specific system is the only person that can resolve these otherwise pointless speculations is something that I raised in my first post. I haven't changed my view since then. The other day, I sent an inquiry to Raytheon asking a) whether it was possible for an insect to get into the sensing path and b) whether there were additional axes of rotation within the housing. I haven't yet received a reply (and broadly speaking, since the inquiry concerns defense equipment in active service, I reckon the company might be wary of answering, even if they feel inclined to...they would also have to pass on the inquiry to the appropriate engineering team, which is not flagged on their front of house public presence). On the general point though...that only an expert on the system can resolve those particular issues to everybody's satisfaction...I agree.

I do however still think that you are confusing a pan-and-zoom style function with a target tracking system. These are not the same thing. I don't really know how to react to your assertion that the insect could "just happen" to be dead centre of the image. And I maintain that the tracking is operating by 3-axis acquisition of the external object. The entire pod gimbal structure then turns in physical space to centre the object in frame. 

 

Again, we need to ask an ATFLIR expert to know, but as far as I know the type of tracking that we see in this video is done by an algorithm that follows the object in the image itself. So if the algorithm looks at the picture and think that the object move from left to right, then it will send the Pod a command to move physically to the right to keep the object in the middle.

The "image" is really an end-point demonstration to the user.  I can't see any advantage to the system getting its tracking information anywhere but directly from the sensor array. The system also has a laser designator, though it is unclear whether it was activated in this instance. However,  I hope you will agree that at this point further speculation is pointless without a Raytheon expert.

 

Quote

 

 

 

I think that both of you, you and Moontanman, are doing lot of assumptions which are not necessarily true about the temperature of the bug.

Since I do have degree level training in biology, I don't feel that I am a chump on "bugs" which is why I pointed out the cold-blooded thing. The examples that you gave are various (fairly unusual) exception cases. The bald fact remains that insects are cold blooded and do not normally generate heat unless involved in vigorous mechanical activity (for instance termites)

 

Quote

Look at this picture, as you know trees are not producing heat, do you think that the deer and the trees has the same temperature?

 

There is nothing particularly unusual about this photograph, though I don't think it is a particularly sensitive thermal imaging system, which I suspect is why it is not making a sufficient distinction between the animal and the trees. It is correctly reporting the animal as the hottest object in the scene. Those tree trunks are nowhere near as hot as a warm blooded mammal, so unless this is just after dusk and those trees have been standing in strong sunlight all day, the performance of the camera is really not very good.

And let's look at some frames from the 'UFO' video itself, do you think that the clouds are Hot as the object?  

I haven't really figured out how to put images into text here, but I isolated the object area in photoshop and superimposed it onto the cloud area you indicated. I had to reduce the luminosity of the object by 1 and a half full exposure stops to get it to the same brightness as the cloud area your arrow is pointing at (I placed it in the brightest area of the cloud). The object is much thermally warmer than the background.

 

Quote

You also forget that the pod has lot of Hot electronic equipment inside, so if the insect was first on this hot equipment, and only then he flew to the window, then it would still be hot.

I very much doubt that this equipment is constructed in such a way that any insect could get into the high precision sensor path. Again, expert required.

 

 

The pod is a large tank with lot of equipment inside, many times the Technicians open the pod in order to do maintenance works. When the pod is open, what prevent from insects and bugs go inside and walks between the infrared camera and the pod's window?

These just look like regular service hatches to me. I'm willing to bet that the optics and ultra-sensitive electronics are in their own high performance sealed unit (no insects   ) and in order to service or adjust the components in there, the unit would need to be sent back to Raytheon for high end service, probably in the equivalent of a clean room.

If almost 25% of the people that tried that survived, then you can be sure that at least 50% םf the insects in this conditions will survive. And again I remind you the it's hot inside the pod because of all the hot electronic equipment that it carries, so an insect inside will not suffer from cold, that's for sure.

In fact, it's possible that the system is cryogenically cooled, as some high end thermal image equipment is. But even if this is not so, unless the electronics are temperature stabilized in some active way, the governing temperature will be the extreme cold of high altitude. Again, obviously the electronics are designed to function within these parameters.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by lightpanther

[Robert Wilson]

15 hours ago, lightpanther said:

.....

1. I agree that we have to wait for an expert answers, otherwise this talk is pointless.

2. I'll just say that I had the chance to work several times with that kind of systems (thermals cameras for aircraft) and I can tell you that they produce a lot of heat. Yeah the sensor itself is cooled to a very low temperature by a cooler that is attached to it, but all the electronic around it is hot, the camera itself is very hot. So I have no doubt that when a camera like that is sitting in it's small space inside the pod it is just like a Heater, and the air around it is hot. An insect will have not problem of cold when he is next to the camera, and if it will get warmed by the camera, then it will looks hot when it's standing on the pod's window.

3. I saw a video that I can't find now that gave me the impression that the IR camera inside the pod is fixed in it's place, and only the front pod's unit with the window is rotating around it. If that's the case and the pod's window can move and and pass the view to a fixed camera inside, then it may explain how it can bring the object to the center even if it's fixed on the window.

4. To insert an image into the text you just have to paste the address of the image, that's all. If the image is on your local computer then you can use this free site to upload it to the internet:

https://imgbb.com

Then after you finish click it to open, then right click on it, copy image address, then paste here.

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by Robert Wilson

[lightpanther]

1 hour ago, Robert Wilson said:

1. I agree that we have to wait for an expert answers, otherwise this talk is pointless.

2. I'll just say that I had the chance to work several times with that kind of systems (thermals cameras for aircraft) and I can tell you that they produce a lot of heat. Yeah the sensor itself is cooled to a very low temperature by a cooler that is attached to it, but all the electronic around it is hot, the camera itself is very hot. So I have no doubt that when a camera like that is sitting in it's small space inside the pod it is just like a Heater, and the air around it is hot. An insect will have not problem of cold when he is next to the camera, and if it will get warmed by the camera, then it will looks hot when it's standing on the pod's window.

What systems were you working with? Can you provide links to their specification and architecture?  And specifically, to their heat generation profiles? Though, altogether I still think this doesn't really go anywhere without a Raytheon expert, so I am going to stop saying this as it is just going on repeat.

 

Quote

3. I saw a video that I can't find now that gave me the impression that the IR camera inside the pod is fixed in it's place, and only the front pod's unit with the window is rotating around it. If that's the case and the pod's window can move and and pass the view to a fixed camera inside, then it may explain how it can bring the object to the center even if it's fixed on the window.

Okay, but I can't really comment without seeing the source and assessing the origin of the source.

 

Quote

4. To insert an image into the text you just have to paste the address of the image, that's all. If the image is on your local computer then you can use this free site to upload it to the internet:

https://imgbb.com

Then after you finish click it to open, then right click on it, copy image address, then paste here.

Thanks for that 

 

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by lightpanther

[Robert Wilson]

1 hour ago, lightpanther said:

What systems were you working with? Can you provide links to their specification and architecture?  And specifically, to their heat generation profiles? Though, altogether I still think this doesn't really go anywhere without a Raytheon expert, so I am going to stop saying this as it is just going on repeat.

I prefer not to get into details about the systems that I worked with, but I remember that when I touched it (specially at the base) it felt like at least 55°C - 65°C.

You can search in Google specifications for an average thermal camera for aircraft, I don't think that it will be much different.

 

[Robert Wilson]

Hi again,

First, about the animations that I showed here a few weeks ago:

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

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

I don't buy the explanation that the 'UFO' stays exactly at the same orientation because of the flare of the IR camera. Yes, we saw some examples of flare that changes its orientation when the camera is turning, but to say that it is SO ACCURATE that it makes the object looks like it's not moving at all, is ridiculous in my opinion.

Second, I played some more with that, I added a color palette to the frames to enhance the horizon line, and I'm sorry to say but it behaves just as you expect from an object (like an insect) that is standing on the pod's window (again, from inside, not exposed to the wind and the cold).

Check the new animation gifs that I made:

1. https://i.ibb.co/MChpLGb/Animation1.gif

2. https://i.ibb.co/CPwhkNJ/Animation2.gif

3. https://i.ibb.co/7XpqKPX/Animation3.gif

4. https://i.ibb.co/mS0dLBs/Animation4.gif

 

See how the 'UFO' stays Exactly at the same spot although the horizon itself is going up and down quite a lot. If it were an external object, I would expect it to also move up and down together with the horizon, but it doesn't.

All the evidence shows that whatever it is, it's fixed to the airplane and it's not external.
 

[Robert Wilson]

 

There are few short moments in the video where it does looks like the object moves with correlation to the view, for example here in minute 0:30 till 0:31:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMOv6baIaso

But it happens just when there is a sudden fast movement. I think that the explanation for that may be that the camera inside the pod is sitting on some kind of a shock absorber to prevent it from breaking when there is a sudden movement, for example during air turbulence.

I guess that the camera (which is quite heavy) is not connected stiffly to the pod, it has some loose that allows it to move a little. So if there is a sudden vibration of the pod to the right, the camera inside will move to the left, so it will looks like the view and the object on the pod's window are moving in the opposite direction - to the right. But after a moment or two the camera returns to it's previous position.

During most of the video the object behaves like it sits on the pod's window, it's movements are NOT correlated with the view, the clouds and the horizon, as you can see in the examples that I gave in my previous post.
 

Edited November 3, 2019 by Robert Wilson

[Robert Wilson]

Here are two animations that Illustrate what we should see when the object is External, and when the object is Internal:

External:  https://i.ibb.co/tpH1JQW/External-Object.gif

Internal:  https://i.ibb.co/L943PJY/Internal-Object.gif

 

As you can see, the second animation (Internal Object) fits exactly what we see in the video:

Example 1:  https://i.ibb.co/MChpLGb/Animation1.gif

Example 2:  https://i.ibb.co/CPwhkNJ/Animation2.gif

 

[dimreepr]

This thread seems to be discussing who is wronger, while assuming... It matters

Edited November 11, 2019 by dimreepr

[Robert Wilson]

Here is a short video animation that demonstrate (in my opinion) what we see in the Gimbal video. The airplane is taking off and there are some dirt spots on it's front window, I marked one of them with a yellow label. See how when the airplane changes it's Tilt while taking off, the horizon is going down but the spot stays exactly in the same place:

https://i.ibb.co/71Nngjv/Airplane-Take-Off.gif

This is the source video that I used:

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

 

[Robert Wilson]

I want you to see how "stable" a lock looks like on a real external target:

1. Here, on minute 0:40, the sound that you hear means that the missile is locked on the target:

 

2. Here at 1:05

3. Here at 4:37

4. Here at 0:58

5. Here at 2:02

 

Can you see the different between this and the lock in the gimbal video?

An object on the pod's window explain perfectly why it is so stable.

 

[itsNiKu]

Robert,

The videos you are showing are of mostly radar locks on aircraft at very close ranges. Due to this, the visual representation of the lock on the target (in most of these videos, a box "over" it), is jumping around and this is because of the nature of the HUD. Notice that the in these videos, the gun snakes, pippers, and other clutter on the HUD move in this way, they aren't completely smooth. The HUD is not a screen, and therefore indications of radar locks, etc. will not move smoothly (this jerky movement could also be attributed to the fact that the aircraft itself is manoeuvring strongly, leading to buffeting or just general movements that make it more difficult for a projection on a piece of glass to seamlessly track). 

The picture from the ATFLIR pod is displayed on one of the DDI's within the aircraft. The DDI is a proper display, not a projection, and therefore of a much better quality than the HUD, therefore leading to smoother elements on the display. 

Also, to address the gifs showing the aircraft banking and the target staying stationary, you have to look at the change in bank angle. It is very minor. This tiny adjustment would have a negligible affect on how the target appears initially, and over time this difference would become more apparent. 

 

[Markus Hanke]

I think it would be helpful to take a step back and survey this issue from a wider perspective.
First of all, a UFO is just precisely that - the designation for a flying object that for some reason or another has not yet been identified. Not more and not less. That does not mean that such an identification won’t still happen, and it does not mean that there is anything untoward, extraordinary, or supernatural going on. As such, UFOs are definitely real, since the capabilities of our visual and radar systems are necessarily limited, and subject to a lot of variables.

Secondly, if the task is about finding evidence that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin (which is often implied, but seldom explicitly stated), then the only permissible evidence will be to physically obtain an actual specimen, and study this according to the scientific method, i.e. in a transparent, peer-reviewed, repeatable and open manner. No visual sighting, radar contact, or even encounter - regardless of how convincing those may at first seem - will ever have any kind of scientific value in this regard, because there are too many variables present in such occurrences.

Strangely enough, while there have been a mind boggling number of UFO sightings over the past few decades in particular, not even a single shred of publicly available physical evidence - in the form of a physical specimen that cannot be attributed to terrestrial sources - exists. Of course, there are many claims of debris having been found etc, but when you try and actually track down those objects, they all have mysteriously disappeared, or were allegedly removed and hidden by authorities, or the reports turn out to be false leads altogether, or the objects themselves are just ordinary “things”. This, in my mind, casts a lot of doubt on the underlying premise.

While I personally have no doubt whatsoever that there are other forms of life out there, I am extremely sceptical about claims of our skies seemingly swarming with crafts sent by advanced civilisations. Here more than anywhere, the maxim “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” holds. Not only is there no extraordinary evidence, there is in fact no physical evidence at all - just vast amounts of anecdotal evidence, which has no scientific value.

So while the above is an interesting and respectful discussion, I think it is really missing the main point. We already know that UFOs are real according to what the term actually means (this is a fact, no need to discuss this), but we can’t know that they are not of terrestrial/natural origin based just on sightings, regardless of exactly how those have been conducted, because there are just too many variables involved.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Markus Hanke

[Robert Wilson]

15 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Secondly, if the task is about finding evidence that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin (which is often implied, but seldom explicitly stated), then the only permissible evidence will be to physically obtain an actual specimen, and study this according to the scientific method, i.e. in a transparent, peer-reviewed, repeatable and open manner. No visual sighting, radar contact, or even encounter - regardless of how convincing those may at first seem - will ever have any kind of scientific value in this regard, because there are too many variables present in such occurrences.

Strangely enough, while there have been a mind boggling number of UFO sightings over the past few decades in particular, not even a single shred of publicly available physical evidence - in the form of a physical specimen that cannot be attributed to terrestrial sources - exists. Of course, there are many claims of debris having been found etc, but when you try and actually track down those objects, they all have mysteriously disappeared, or were allegedly removed and hidden by authorities, or the reports turn out to be false leads altogether, or the objects themselves are just ordinary “things”. This, in my mind, casts a lot of doubt on the underlying premise.

 

I agree, that's why I gave the following link in one of my previous posts here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BRDCxNEuyg

 

On 12/10/2019 at 4:24 PM, itsNiKu said:

Robert,

The videos you are showing are of mostly radar locks on aircraft at very close ranges. Due to this, the visual representation of the lock on the target (in most of these videos, a box "over" it), is jumping around and this is because of the nature of the HUD. Notice that the in these videos, the gun snakes, pippers, and other clutter on the HUD move in this way, they aren't completely smooth. The HUD is not a screen, and therefore indications of radar locks, etc. will not move smoothly (this jerky movement could also be attributed to the fact that the aircraft itself is manoeuvring strongly, leading to buffeting or just general movements that make it more difficult for a projection on a piece of glass to seamlessly track). 

The picture from the ATFLIR pod is displayed on one of the DDI's within the aircraft. The DDI is a proper display, not a projection, and therefore of a much better quality than the HUD, therefore leading to smoother elements on the display. 

Also, to address the gifs showing the aircraft banking and the target staying stationary, you have to look at the change in bank angle. It is very minor. This tiny adjustment would have a negligible affect on how the target appears initially, and over time this difference would become more apparent. 

 

itsNiKu,

I don't have time right now to start this conversation again, just two points:

1. I don't think that the aircraft in the videos that I showed here are much closer than the 'UFO' object (if you assume that it's a real external target)

https://i.ibb.co/r3m2SxF/Lock-On-Target.jpg

2. Ignore the digital display, look only on the real view and the horizon, this is what I expect to see if the object was a real (external) target:

https://i.ibb.co/mTKVwqh/Real-Target-In-View.gif

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Robert Wilson

[G Longhurst]

"3. The pilot said that he didn't see the object from the window, but Only on the camera screen. If it's a real flying object in front of the aircraft then why didn't he see it also from his window?"

Apologies if this is repost,
Pilot visually reports no planes (presumably has good eyesight as naval aviator), no rotor wash or rotor visible, exhibiting odd inertia etc.
Pilot does indicate he and a separate aviator (same aircraft, backseat?) both had visual line of sight - then later comments four total people on scene visual line of sight - not instrumentation - to object (approx 25 sec in), here:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/12/20/david-fravor-intv-us-navy-pilot-ufo-encounter-sot-ebof.cnn

[Moontanman]

It's official! The UAP seen in these videos are not bugs on the glass! The air force has publicly declassified and admitted they don't know what is in the short films but what was seen are UAP!... The damning report starts at 88:20...

 

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Moontanman said:

It's official! The UAP seen in these videos are not bugs on the glass!

How do you come to that conclusion?

12 hours ago, Moontanman said:

The air force has publicly declassified and admitted they don't know what is in the short films but what was seen are UAP!... The damning report starts at 88:20...

The air force's report is a video?

[taeto]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How do you come to that conclusion?

The air force's report is a video?

It must be a true coverup; the video appears to have been pulled. I will run to get my tinfoil hat now.