UFO Video Captured By Homeland Security Analyzed

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: funbox

You have a theory, you believe the report...that's pretty obvious.

There are falsifiable claims and unfalsifiable claims. I'm slow and I don't have all the time I want to check all the falsifiable claims about the trajectories that are the most valid sources to understand the path of the object. But for what I've looked so far the "keyframes" of both the object and the plane seem to match the claims thus, provided the data aren't wrong, I do tend to believe in some of its claims.
To not believe those I would need an alternative trajectory theory which so far not even the debunker has been able to provide.

The procedure is painful so I'm not really surprised that no one wants to do it, but the line of sight analysis is imho the only way to establish an approximate distance and once you have the distance it's possible to estimate its dimensions by angular size since the camera has fixed magnifications.
For the speed I'm definetly not convinced that will be possible to have accurate measures, but progressively adding keyframes should give a decent ballpark.
For the temperature an educated guess can be made, we can find air temperature from historical data so we should be able to find a few reference objects. If the complete specs of the MX-15d were available online it would have been much simpler.

I'm all for an Earthly explanation, but I question if it's a pelican. I don't see it flapping it's wings or where it lands at 2:05 and two different birds appear as she says. If it lands at 2:05, what this below appearing from behind "something" at 2:10 on the same path and the same shape? It's moving, not stationary. Whatever it is, disappears and reappears on the same path it started.

originally posted by: funbox

Thumbs up for the inverted animated gif showing it does strike and split as I've been trying to point out, thumbs down for the cloning itself comment. It strikes the wave and only then happens to clone itself?

I still believe it's balloons coming apart as it drags on the wave. A sudden reflected heat signature off the water after it drags the wave just then is too coincidental. If it appears out of no where and is close to the water, maybe. But right after there's a physical reaction with the water, I don't know.
Two objects are represented in both the wide shot and the quick change to the close up. Also, after it strikes the wave, one part stays on the same basic path, while the other floats away from it at a 20 degree angle on a different course. I don't know how a reflection would do that. There's no obvious movement of the camera or plane to account for this. Plus, the object looks different than it did before. A pelican wouldn't magically change shape, but a group of separating balloons would. The odd looking heat signature could be explained by the areas of the balloons not absorbed by the sunlight being seen now.


Anyway, I'm not here to argue if it's an Earthly object, just to argue it's not an extraordinary unexplainable object. I could be wrong and it could be a bird even if I don't see it. Still way more likely than some type of alien... thing.

----------------------------------------

a reply to: Mastronaut

What's the light source they are reflecting so much to require a scramble? How can that reflection be enough to give it a definitely higher temperature than the ambient?

A scramble of what? A flight to follow the object? As I pointed out in a previous post, this was a routine flight where a pink/reddish reflection caught the pilots eye. That would resemble aircraft lighting, which prompts him to contact the tower. Sunlight reflecting off colored Mylar balloons could give the appearance of a pink/reddish light. A good example is a video posted here several days ago. Here's a screen shot of the object claimed to be some type of craft. It's balloons of course:


Looks like a pink/reddish light, doesn't it? It's reflects like this off and on through whole video. I haven't chosen one frame of the entire video that happens to show the only reflection.
Balloons floating in the sun are going to absorb some heat and be warmer than the surrounding air. That's just common sense.

I will believe in a mundane explanation when we have one that matches what I see and the data presented. This is not a balloon.

So you accept the data presented, but dismiss the submerging underwater as confusion for... what? It's not clouds, it's not a parachute, it's just some kind of something? A fill-in-the-blanks kind of answer?
Tossing out the belief that it submerges underwater should put into question other claims of the report. That shows you believe the authors can be mistaken.

I can live with the doubt, I don't know what it is. I don't discount the possibility that is something otherworldly or some kind of secret probe and as I said I don't believe it submerges. I'm arguing the points that some of you are trying to make up to have a mundane explanation at all costs.

"At all costs" implying I'm desperately searching for any answer no matter how ridiculous just to explain this away? Not quite. The first time I watched the video, I thought balloons. The only motivation is to point out what I see as obvious and try to back that up using screen grabs from the video.

You start with the predjudice that this MUST be something and CAN'T be something else. I do not have this approach, but I don't know any otherworldly object so I am not going to scream "aliens", nor I do know any tech that would fit perfectly for the object behaviour.

No, you begin with an Earthly explanation and work from there. You don't begin assuming this is an otherworldly object. Do you know why? Because there's yet to be convincing absolute evidence that we're being visited by anything alien. Maybe, possibly, kinda, sorta doesn't count. The foundation has to be built first to even give an equal possibility to this being something extraordinary.

There have been hundreds of thousands of sightings in the past and unless we can identify them they are UFO, the U is the key. The military are ok with calling some events unidentified and they have a lot more knowledge of tech and physics, why should I have the arrogance of taking a stance if what I see doesn't match?

Because we're not dealing with eyewitness testimony and a story which is what a majority of UFO cases are. We have a 3:55 video with visual evidence of this object and can draw our own possibilities or conclusions. I have no problem with a military eyewitness that says he saw X doing X maneuvers. I'm not going to argue the point because I have no visual evidence. It remains unidentified. If he has a video of what he saw and to me it looks like something that's not extraordinary, then yes, I'll point it out.

Imagine how many objects would be identified if they were all filmed. Look how many YouTube videos that are posted that are claimed to be UFOs. Look how many are debunked when watched by other people. I would say most, if not all. That "hundreds of thousand" sightings you claim would dwindle to a small amount.

Considering they are identical and move in parallel I think it is an IR artifact as shown earlier by gortex or a reflection of IR which some people here seem to not understand is an actual thing...

The fact it just fades out with no water interaction IMO confirms that it is one of the above.

I am more convinced now that clouds are blocking the heat signature occasionally causing the illusion of "rotation".

I also have done some research and she is correct that it attempted a lock and would not which does confirm that the object is actually very small. Much Smaller than the report assumes.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

tell me you didn't miss the second wake from the cloned object ?

you'll see it

funbox

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
A scramble of what? A flight to follow the object? As I pointed out in a previous post, this was a routine flight where a pink/reddish reflection caught the pilots eye. That would resemble aircraft lighting, which prompts him to contact the tower. Sunlight reflecting off colored Mylar balloons could give the appearance of a pink/reddish light. A good example is a video posted here several days ago. Here's a screen shot of the object claimed to be some type of craft. It's balloons of course:
... pic ...
Looks like a pink/reddish light, doesn't it? It's reflects like this off and on through whole video. I haven't chosen one frame of the entire video that happens to show the only reflection.
Balloons floating in the sun are going to absorb some heat and be warmer than the surrounding air. That's just common sense.

Ye indeed I should have refrained to talk about the scramble due to "something reddish" because it's unfalsifiable, you have to believe the words of one of the witnesses.
However, at 9:20 pm in Puerto Rico in april the sun is already well behind the horizon (sunset 18:44) so it was either spotted much earlier or couldn't reflect anything. I don't want to discount that it accumulated heat, but I question how much because we see a very clear heat source and weather balloon are often silvery or white, so they don't absorb that much nor they should retain the heat for so much after the sun sets.

So you accept the data presented, but dismiss the submerging underwater as confusion for... what? It's not clouds, it's not a parachute, it's just some kind of something? A fill-in-the-blanks kind of answer?
Tossing out the belief that it submerges underwater should put into question other claims of the report. That shows you believe the authors can be mistaken.

You start with a biased premise that if something in the report doesn't match, the whole report isn't valid. I absolutely think they can be mistaken and also that the rest of the report can be questioned, but you do not distinguish falsifiable evidence and unfalsifiable one. Submerging = interpretation, plane location = data. So IF the data presented aren't wrong I'm willing to discard them only in the case I or somebody else can prove the opposite beyond doubt.

"At all costs" implying I'm desperately searching for any answer no matter how ridiculous just to explain this away? Not quite. The first time I watched the video, I thought balloons.

"Ridiculous" is an arbitrary word based on accepted knowledge. Imho it's ridiculous to claim this is a baloon unless there are data presented to show why it's hot and how much. Clouds and parachute obstruction COULD be an explaination, but in that case other things don't match because clouds don't hide objects selectively.
In any case it's unfalsifiable unless there is compelling evidence, which I've not seen presented here. You are free to believe it, but when you believe in unfalsifiable claims it gets very close to "at all costs".

No, you begin with an Earthly explanation and work from there. You don't begin assuming this is an otherworldly object. Do you know why? Because there's yet to be convincing absolute evidence that we're being visited by anything alien. Maybe, possibly, kinda, sorta doesn't count. The foundation has to be built first to even give an equal possibility to this being something extraordinary.

I didn't begin at all assuming this is otherwordly so please stop with the strawman. And no, you don't begin from an earthly explaination, you begin analizing falsifiable data and take no stance, progressively discarding the known possibilities.

- Baloon? Then I need more evidence for the heat signature.
- Bird? then I need more evidence of flapping, shape changes, directional changes.
- Drone? then I'd need more evidence for it's thermal sig, controller range etc.
- Ball lightning? Then we need a lot more evidence
- CGI or hoax or compression artifacts? It's possible aswell but I don't see signs of conterfeit nor I saw anyone claiming so.
- Otherwordly? Then I wouldn't be sure in ANY case since I don't have knowledge of otherwordly tech outside of wild speculations on the web.
- New physics? I don't see a reason, nor I've seen anyone presenting a credible theory.
What's left? Nothing I can think of, so I don't know, there are pros and cons to any of those possibilities, if the video isn't fake then there must be an explaination, it's just that I don't know which one it is.

Because we're not dealing with eyewitness testimony and a story which is what a majority of UFO cases are. We have a 3:55 video with visual evidence of this object and can draw our own possibilities or conclusions. I have no problem with a military eyewitness that says he saw X doing X maneuvers. I'm not going to argue the point because I have no visual evidence. It remains unidentified. If he has a video of what he saw and to me it looks like something that's not extraordinary, then yes, I'll point it out.

I have a problem with any unfalsifiable claims instead, because you have to believe and can't prove otherwise. It remains unidentified, so I'm not the only one who doesn't know after all

Imagine how many objects would be identified if they were all filmed. Look how many YouTube videos that are posted that are claimed to be UFOs. Look how many are debunked when watched by other people. I would say most, if not all. That "hundreds of thousand" sightings you claim would dwindle to a small amount.

I look especially at the debunkers, because it's generally a matter of heavy bias. Example is the link posted last page, "It's a pelican, there we go, debunked". Not true at all without in depth analysis. Most debunkers don't debunk a fking thing, they just are going to satisfy those who believe it CAN'T be something else, and this doesn't even mean otherwordly. But since most debunkers think that "I don't know" = aliens and are ok explaining just 2/3rd of the story.

The 100s of thousands sightings won't dwindle to a small amount, youtube is just a recent addition and records go back for decades. Secret projects aren't going to be public for quite a lot of time and they surely count for some of those unexplainable events, and while MOST of those sightings are hoaxes or illusions or any other mundane explaination, the sheer number of cases means that even if a .1% of the cases remain unexplained they are still a lot. We just need 1 acknoledged case of "alien" to require a review of the entire collection of sightings, but IF that will ever happen, would you want to be the one that debunked the case with a mundane explaination because "we know nature better than itself"? I sleep well even not taking a stance, I respect opinions as long as reasons are presented and others opinions are not ridiculed to make a point stronger.

"I don't know what this is" doesn't mean it could be anything, it just means that it isn't clear from the data we have and in no way means this is otherwordly.

originally posted by: raymundoko
I also have done some research and she is correct that it attempted a lock and would not which does confirm that the object is actually very small. Much Smaller than the report assumes.

Can you link some source pls, because I wasn't able to find data about the MX-15d and its target lock specs. Also, does the DHC-8 have a triggered lock?

a reply to: Mastronaut

I mean the lock failure aspect of it. The indicator at 43 seconds means a lock was attempted and the programming of the lock mechanism determined it didn't want to initiate a lock or the lock failed.

All I did was google "mx15d IR target lock failure" and found some videos of MX series cameras failing to lock onto something. You are correct though in that that doesn't prove the size of the object I guess. I just proves the lock failed at 43 seconds. I just went with her assessment that it is more than likely programmed to not accidentally lock onto birds. I can't confirm that is a part of the target locking mechanism though.

a reply to: funbox

Are you saying you see the reflection interact with the water and create a splash?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Mastronaut

I mean the lock failure aspect of it. The indicator at 43 seconds means a lock was attempted and the programming of the lock mechanism determined it didn't want to initiate a lock or the lock failed.

All I did was google "mx15d IR target lock failure" and found some videos of MX series cameras failing to lock onto something. You are correct though in that that doesn't prove the size of the object I guess. I just proves the lock failed at 43 seconds. I just went with her assessment that it is more than likely programmed to not accidentally lock onto birds. I can't confirm that is a part of the target locking mechanism though.

The only thing I am able to find is the mx-15d software description on this site

Kinetic™ MTI
Ideal for: ISR missions and search automation
Kinetic MTI is a moving target indicator (MTI) tool that detects and annotates objects in a scene that are moving relative to the background. This greatly reduces operator burden on surveillance missions and aids in search automation. Kinetic MTI is available as a standalone function, or part of Kinetic ISR.

MX-GEO Software Suite:
GEO-Pointing
Minimizes operator burden by keeping the sensors line-of-sight maintained on a fixed target. In ‘Auto’ steering mode, the sensor automatically maintains the line-of-sight on a geo-referenced target by locking in precise its latitude, longitude and altitude. This is regardless of changes in the position and attitude of the host aircraft.
Conversely, the sensor will automatically slew to a specific geo-referenced location as commanded by an external system, and will keep the line-of-sight on that location regardless of host location and attitude changes.

GEO-Focus
Ensures correct focus at all times, even when alternating between sensors. GEO-Focus will automatically refocus the subject while flying above broken cloud cover. The operator’s input is reduced to occasional fine-tuning.
GEO-Scan
System will automatically build up a mosaic of images in a step-stare steering mode. An operator-specified amount of overlap is guaranteed.

So it seems that is not related the the real dimensions of the object, but the angular-size and time it takes to keep the object in the crosshair to geo-locate it, since it's processed by a video parser (in 2d).
In a few word I read it as "too small compared to the crosshair", but lacking a detailed explaination can't confirm nor deny it.

What I find strange is the absence of lock when the target is more or less in the crosshair in the end of the video so I wonder if you need a trigger to even try a lock.

a reply to: raymundoko

do you understand thermodynamics ? explain to me how one object can heat the waters surface fast enough to replicate a reflection of itself so the cameras sensor can pick it up ?

*funbox steps into the straightjacket and zips up*

mufflebox

a reply to: funbox

So your confusion is you think and IR reflection means the object has to heat the reflective surface?? It has nothing to do with thermodynamics and everything to do with light reflection (visible or otherwise)...Or did this mirror heat up super fast for the camera????



In any case I have already stated I think Gortex hit the nail on the head already but it could also be IR reflection.

a reply to: raymundoko

to get a reflection yes, what Gortes is exampling is ghosting , which is not the same thing as heat convection on a surface to define it as the object creating the heat

it caused by sensor overload , when you bombard the sensor close range with a gas-powered element, like a said , it was a fantastic example

try imagining looking directly at the sun, mid day , give it a good stare and see what happens

funbox

a reply to: funbox

Are you confused? I didn't say what Gortex did was a reflection. I think that is the effect we are seeing though.

I said it could ALSO be a reflection as some people have also said. There doesn't have to be any convection for IR to reflect...

You appear to be trying to blur posts now to back out of not knowing that IR can reflect...

a reply to: raymundoko

ok , so you've seemed to have displayed ir reflecting in a mirror and the camera picking it up , albeit at close range, fair play
but in this footage were not talking about a mirror and 3 feet away, I see the sea at that distance on the object creating a rippling reflection if that's what it is, it doesn't appear to adhere to the waves, in any visible way whatsoever, submergence but not refraction



if its a reflection ,the lower of the two, how is it disappearing , with alternation , I just can see the clouds obscuring in such a tight framing , to me it looks like to objects over the water surface, and submerging periodically

funbox

a reply to: funbox

Sorry, I just don't see the second ghost object interacting with the water ever. For how often it flickers we should see some interaction and there is none.

a reply to: raymundoko

allow me to try to understand , which one do you think is the reflection and which is the real object ?

funbox

a reply to: funbox

That 360p video is of such horrible quality, it's impossible to tell what's going on. Is there a better quality version somewhere?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

JonJon dropped it up on this page www.abovetopsecret.com...

can someone confirm if this footage is from a thermal camera or an IR ?

the contrast to me seems to good to be IR

funbox

a reply to: funbox

It's from a MX-15D

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

but I don't believe its better quality , I think its been transcoded to a higher resolution, the dreaded blowup

funbox