UFO Video Captured By Homeland Security Analyzed

a reply to: Mastronaut

There are a number of things about the readouts I can't make sense of. That is one of them. I'm not sure if the compass bearing is accurate either. Also, what appears to be the focal length of the lens seems odd, but I can't put my finger on it. It would be nice to have a recording of a verified drone picture to compare this with.

a reply to: DJW001

it does not split in two, that is an illusion caused by the limits of the imaging device

can you describe this in a little more detail , what do you mean?, fascinating

funbox

a reply to: funbox

Something like this from .40 on video.

a reply to: gortex

so then whty are there not more duplicates within the footage ? and this guys exampling what looks like a blow torch powered heating element ?

hmmm , really comparable?

funbox

a reply to: Mastronaut

I am tired of your obfuscation. Your blatant bias is blatantly obvious. Don't come into a thread feigning objectivity when your disingenuousness is clear as day.

You didn't present evidence of anything

My post history in this thread disagrees with that statement. Just because you bury your head in the sand and deny doesn't make it true.

If you want to attack its data you need to do at least a ballpark estimation of its trajectory and the airplane trajectory

The first part of that I have already done. The object never submerges, I have proven that unequivocally. It also does not disappear behind trees, I have proven that as well. Other users have proven it disappears for no reason over open land/sea.

The second part is a ludicrous red herring of request because we already have that information. This is what I like to refer to as a desperate tactic.

accuse the authors of hoax, stating that they were hoaxers in other cases, presenting no proof and then retracting the statement;

I did not print a retraction that they were involved in a hoax, nor did I ever say they authored a hoax. I said they were embroiled in hoaxes, and that is an undeniable fact which I outlined in a post. I randomly picked ONE hoax event for each person with the exception of the one I did not know. My retraction was to fix any confusion my post may have caused to make people feel I was directly accusing people of creating a hoax. They could very well have been duped by the examples I gave, but that doesn't help their credibility. I understand English isn't your first language, so perhaps you misunderstood in translation. UFO Congress, Sprite Photo Hoaxes and a TV show rehashing hoaxes can all be contributed to THREE of the authors of this report.

claim that the object is not moving or moving slowly and never got above ground, only above the sea, presenting no evidence, no approximate locations, nothing;

Another pathetic red herring. I don't have to come up with approximate locations. All I have to do is wait for the plane to be going in a straight line and then do basic math. This happens towards the end of the video shortly before the object finally lands in the water. I also stated it was my opinion it may not have been over land from attempting to remove the optical illusions from the video. Your images you used are one frame after the object appears to be totally over the water. Who's optical illusion is correct? Are you suggesting that the object then goes farther inland after the screen caps you took? Are you suggesting it reverses direction? C'mon man, don't get sad on me.

you avoided to discuss its thermal signature, then ended up justifying this with a platinum heater, despite this heater should be on the box laying at least a few meters below the baloon itself, as it is shown in the links YOU posted;
- you claimed the object disappears because it's half enveloped in its parachute and it's rotating; zero evidence for this aswell;

Both of which are my opinion and could be wrong. Unlike you however I am willing to accept if I am wrong, and I am not FIRST assuming this is an otherworldly UFO like you have done.

support your theory of balloon with a yt video of an helicopter around a skyscraper and an anectode about you filming the effect in your garden.

A plane, but whatever. The effect absolutely proves the movement of the plane causes an illusion of added speed and location. This last quote alone shows without a doubt where your preconceived bias lies.

Since you can't figure the illusion of disappearing act and how the cloud isn't overtaking the object, I have included this image. However I did provide instructions on how to replicate this on your own. You like to ignore evidence though and claim it was never there...

a reply to: funbox

Yes, it is directly comparable. It's the same effect. So yet ANOTHER section of the report has been debunked. The "splitting" of the object is most probably due to the IR camera. Credit to Gortex for the video proof of such an effect.

originally posted by: DJW001
A black trash bag would absorb sunlight and re-radiate in the IR.

A mylar balloon with a dark/black side and a shiny reflective silver side might very well reflect heat from a particular angle, and if it rotated it could effectively "disappear."

originally posted by: funbox
a reply to: DJW001

it does not split in two, that is an illusion caused by the limits of the imaging device

can you describe this in a little more detail , what do you mean?, fascinating

funbox

The object is so small that the number of pixels it activates is due to its brightness, not its size. If its brightness varies, the number and location of these pixels can change.

a reply to: raymundoko

We have very different concepts of "evidence", "trajectory" and "analysis", you should also reread some of the statements you made because I'm surely not the only one who thinks you are accusing the authors of hoaxes.

Also, if you can please explain a me a pair of things you said we can agree to disagree and move on without bloating anymore this post.

The second part is a ludicrous red herring of request because we already have that information. This is what I like to refer to as a desperate tactic.

What second part? The trajectory of the plane and the object? I suggest you to reread the report check Fig.11 and compare to what you drew. They can't match.

and I am not FIRST assuming this is an otherworldly UFO like you have done

But I didn't, I only said I didn't discount it a-priori like you and others do, but since I don't know any otherwordly tech I'd be very careful before doing such a claim.
I am ok with "I don't know", you prefer to be sure this is a balloon.

Cheers

Figure 3 is what you should be using. Figure 11 is three paths completely picked by the authors of the report based on the optical illusions in the video. The plot over the water in fig 3 are the radar pings of the object along with the flight path of the plane.

a reply to: Mastronaut

a reply to: raymundoko

why ? do you think they're camera was 3 feet away from the heat source ? was the object as hot as a gas fuelled element?

yes indeed , directly comparable. care to give a detailed analysis of why ?

or would a straight jacket be more preferable ?

funbox

Detailed analysis? That's a pretty dumb request...

a reply to: funbox

a reply to: DJW001

brightness? you mean it's heat variability , these cameras are looking into whats hot or not aren't they ?

so small , yet the lenses have a good capability to optically zoom, were not viewing digitized zoom here I feel, and in some framings its certainly more than a 'few pixels'

funbox

a reply to: funbox

brightness? you mean it's heat variability , these cameras are looking into whats hot or not aren't they ?

Correct, its "brightness" corresponds to the amount of heat coming off the object the sensors can detect. The object may radiate heat in an irregular pattern or something may obstruct that heat radiation. Note the passing cars: their engines are very "dark," which means they are very bright in IR, yet you cannot see the people within the cars because, even though they are radiating heat at 98 degrees F, they are shielded by the cars' roofs.

so small , yet the lenses have a good capability to optically zoom, were not viewing digitized zoom here I feel, and in some framings its certainly more than a 'few pixels'

I'm not sure what magnification system is being used here.

Don't you know about the bird?
Well, everybody knows that the bird is the word...

Here's an article from Chriss Pagani, who says she's solved the case.
I'm sure feathers will fly over this!

Homeland Security UFO Video Analyzed | U Debunked It

a reply to: DJW001

I might upload the video of the sequence inverted later , you get to see more of the manoeuvres this object makes as it traverses the environment, strange how adjustments to the details can show one thing then reveal another

maybe later

funbox

originally posted by: CardDown
Don't you know about the bird?
Well, everybody knows that the bird is the word...

Here's an article from Chriss Pagani, who says she's solved the case.
I'm sure feathers will fly over this!

Homeland Security UFO Video Analyzed | U Debunked It

Claims are made about the bird traveling 86 miles per hour, and later flying through the water at a similar speed. I think there were too many assumptions involved. Just looking at the display, there was an attempted target lock at around 43 seconds into the video (the box that briefly pops-up around the crosshairs) - this fails. This is a clue in itself: The target had plenty of heat signature, and once in the crosshairs, the operator pulled the trigger, but the lock failed. This was an immediate clue that we were looking at a very small target; one below the threshold of the software for target tracking. We understand that. Mostly these IR systems are used to lock onto aircraft, or cars, or sometimes people. But you don't want them accidentally locking on a bird. That's not what it is for. Now the lack of a lock is important, because it means that all the target readings on the lower right display were not about this target. And We will address that further, because it led to a fundamental error on the part of the SCU investigators.

Highlight mine.
I think this is important.
Thanks.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Figure 3 is what you should be using. Figure 11 is three paths completely picked by the authors of the report based on the optical illusions in the video. The plot over the water in fig 3 are the radar pings of the object along with the flight path of the plane.

a reply to: Mastronaut

Figure 3 is "prior" to the departure of the aircraft.
So what you are saying is that the authors are presenting the actual pings of the object in the video as if they were the reason to scramble.
Let's say that is it is the case, then how can an object flying at best at 20 mph is able to move about 3 miles in 2 minutes of footage?

originally posted by: CardDown
I'm sure feathers will fly over this!
Homeland Security UFO Video Analyzed | U Debunked It

So I was right the first time. My mistake!

a reply to: Blue Shift

so in the two levels of zoom we see the objectbird, clone itself ? Mr shift

funbox