Breaking: George Knapp releases new UAP photos and reports taken by US military

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I knew the jury was out on Mr. Corbell but not all the info you have posted there, yes some definite Swiss cheese action going on there. Again that interview might be completely staged b/s which would render the ATFLIR video unremarkable. If legit though gives a lot of credibility to an amazing encounter.

originally posted by: Slyder12
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I could be way off here and perhaps someone can correct me but doesn’t the ATFLIR pod use a laser designator which tracks and ranges the target independently of camera modes.

I would call it a "rangefinder" because it finds the "range" or distance to the target.

We can see that the target lock can function without the rangefinder, but it doesn't appear that the rangefinder can function without the target lock. If you watch the gofast video, you will notice that the "RNG" number does not appear until the target is "captured" by the target lock.

In the "Gofast" video, one of the three videos released by the pentagon, the rangefinder detects and displays the distance to the target as soon as target lock is acquired. In that video, the distance to the target varies a bit, but in this screencap from Mick West's video explaining that it's not really going fast, he highlights the RNG number which is Range, saying it says 3.8 which is 3.8 nautical miles.


"Go Fast" UFO Video Explained?

So obviously the rangefinder works on that target less than 4 miles away. It probably has a maximum limit to how far away the target can be for the rangefinder to work. What that maximum limit is would probably depend on things like the size of the target, the composition/reflective properties of the target, the amount of haze in the atmosphere, etc.

The other two videos released by the pentagon, FLIR (aka tictac) and Gimbal do not display the range, presumably because the distances are beyond the maximum range of the range finder to function given the variables involved with those targets. I seem to remember something about radar indicating a distance of 40 miles to the target in Underwood's video initially, and during the time in the video he seemed to be moving closer to the object so maybe got within 30 miles of it or something like that based on his speed and the fact that the target didn't seem to be moving very fast at all as he was flying toward it, which was even noted in one of the reports distributed on the Nimitz incident.

So 30-40 miles is a lot further than 4 miles. It's not too hard to understand why the rangefinder can work better at closer distances, like 4 miles, than it can at 30-40 miles.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes but more importantly to your argument is the laser designator also used for targeting and tracking (locking on) the target independently from the cameras because if that is the case changing zoom and cycling between camera modes would not break the lock as the laser designator is performing that function.

originally posted by: Slyder12
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes but more importantly in your argument is the laser designator also used for targeting and tracking (locking on) the target independently from the camera modes because if that is the case changing zoom and cycling between camera modes would not brake the lock as the laser designator is performing that function.

The rangefinder is not performing at all in the FLIR (tictac) video; it doesn't display any range.

Even in the Gofast video where the rangefinder works, it doesn't work until target lock is acquired, so it does not appear to be independent in that respect.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

From what I can gather of the system it seems the camera modes are passive and used for detection and identification and something else in the system (radar/laser) is locking on and tracking these targets for weapons use whereby different camera modes and zoom levels do nothing to break the lock as they are slaved or can be slaved to whatever the radar/laser is locked onto.

If that is the case and the way I understand it providing Cmdr Underwood’s testimony is true or that is actually him in the interview, if indeed the aircraft was flying straight and level the only way to break the lock would be manually in the aircraft, an object breaking the lock, jamming or a system malfunction.

Again we need to know exactly how the system works in this regard, so leaving it to others much more in the know than I if they are out there.

Additionally could be getting this wrong but were they not being jammed at some point and would that not effectively play havoc with tracking and ranging?

originally posted by: Slyder12
If that is the case and the way I understand it providing Cmdr Underwood’s testimony is true or that is actually him in the interview, if indeed the aircraft was flying straight and level the only way to break the lock would be manually in the aircraft, an object breaking the lock, jamming or a system malfunction.

I already posted the video where this is proven wrong, but you either didn't watch it or don't understand it. How about watching it?

Again we need to know exactly how the system works in this regard, so leaving it to others much more in the know than I if they are out there.

Watch the video. You can watch the points where Chad Underwood's own video proves Chad Underwood wrong. It shows he loses lock when he changes cameras, Mick West points those instances out, but they are hard to miss, and they do exactly what Underwood says a lost lock does, so you can see for yourself Underwood is wrong when he says he doesn't lose lock. He obviously does, numerous times, using his own criteria for losing lock, ie the bars widen. You have to watch the whole video. Those broken locks are pointed out near the end, but you won't have the context without the preceding part of the video if you try to just watch the end.

Additionally could be getting this wrong but were they not being jammed at some point and would that not effectively play havoc with tracking and ranging?

The cameras operate on visible and infrared frequencies. The target is too far away for the laser rangefinder to work in Underwood's video, but in any case, the laser frequencies are not affected by jamming of microwaves or radio waves. When Underwood refers to jamming it would be jammable frequencies, like those used by radar or communications, not visible, infrared or laser frequencies.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Obviously i do not understand the system, I am unclear of what the atflir is using to lock on to the target and track. Is it using the A/A radar, infrared signature of the target, laser designator or something else? Perhaps not important.

When he cycles between camera modes it seems to maintain some sort of lock, what is it using to track the target in TV mode? If its the infrared signature wouldn't that lock be maintained with the pod while switching modes rather than reacquiring every time a different camera mode is used.

Also the flir seeker is looking at and maintaining 7' to 8' left and 5' up in IR mode when the lock is broken so if the aircraft and seeker are not moving relative to the target would not the object be moving?

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: Lucidparadox

I don't think I have ocd, but I want to brutalize the person who thought it would be cute to ruin the pictures with a MW.

Stands for "Mystery Wire," Knapp's web site. They're his photos and I imagine he's tired of people using his material and claiming it as their own. He has promised to release the pics without watermarks in the future.

originally posted by: Slyder12
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Obviously i do not understand the system, I am unclear of what the atflir is using to lock on to the target and track. Is it using the A/A radar, infrared signature of the target, laser designator or something else? Perhaps not important.

What is important in the context of understanding Underwood's FLIR video is how Underwood himself defines whether it has lock on the target or not, so focus on that. Underwood says, when the bars are narrow, snug against the object, it has lock. When the bars widen, it has lost lock. Chad Underwood says this himself, and these definitions are not in dispute.

What is incorrect in Underwood's explanation is that he says the lock is only lost at the end. Watch the entire video, and you can see that is false. Mick West points out the other times lock is lost, the bars widen, which is Underwood's own definition of "losing lock". It usually happens when Underwood changes cameras.

Also the flir seeker is looking at and maintaining 7' to 8' left and 5' up in IR mode when the lock is broken so if the aircraft and seeker are not moving relative to the target would not the object be moving?

If you put a cam on your biking helmet and ride down the street, as you pass the mailboxes, they will appear to move off to the side as you pass them. That doesn't mean the mailboxes are moving, does it? No. So you have to be careful about inferring motion of an object on camera when you yourself are in a moving vehicle. What you see is apparent relative motion, and you can see that sometimes even if the object you're filming isn't moving at all, like the mailboxes.

There is steady apparent relative motion throughout the entire video. You can plot it, it doesn't change change much, meaning there's NO dramatic acceleration at the end like Underwood claims. This is the plot showing the relative motion during the entire video, it is essentially correct, Underwood is very incorrect to say there is physics-defying acceleration at the end since this shows there isn't any significant acceleration at the end, the apparent relative motion is unchanged:

www.metabunk.org...


If there was sudden acceleration at the end as Underwood claims, the line of the apparent motion would change at the end. It doesn't, you can see the apparent motion is unchanged after the lock is broken, and you can calculate all this yourself and plot this graph yourself using only high school math, from the information on display in the video. You would have to spend some time understanding the information on the display but it's really not complicated and it's explained in West's video I posted earlier.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Starting to see it now. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Anyone that takes the word of Jeremy Corbell shows the depth of their research. Corbell has shown through his own films that he's not in fact on a search for the truth. In Patient Seventeen he had access to a claimed piece of physical evidence with the implant and an opportunity to show the alien visitation phenomenon could be real. Finally it's not just a story told anymore. Through Corbell, believers now have actual physical evidence that can be scientifically studied and analyzed. He has the implant studied by scientist(s) connected to his film and we're given a claim of unusual properties. That's great and a beginning. In order to move the phenomenon steps forward, that evidence has to go through the same process that any other piece of evidence does. Scrutiny by other scientists in the same field. He says in a lecture that he wants to send the implant elsewhere to rule out contamination. Now the abductee in the film doesn't give up the implant. Convenient to someone making a UFOtainment film disguised as a search for the truth.

Lazar has physical evidence but won't give it up. George Knapp knows where this evidence is buried but won't give it up. Lazar has a visual evidence of the material in action but won't give it up. Knapp has the video or a copy but has lost it. This is physical and visual evidence of alien visitation we have today. Forget about the claimed physical evidence of the past that can't be provided. I'd be pissed at this point if I were a supporter of visitation. These people have failed miserably in helping show publically that your own belief or story is true.

It's insulting to the intelligence of the believer that they know they have a group that will excuse away all reasons for not providing evidence. They're being played as fools and allowing themselves to be. They're getting away with having nothing. Hold them responsible for once if you believe.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Slyder12
If that is the case and the way I understand it providing Cmdr Underwood’s testimony is true or that is actually him in the interview, if indeed the aircraft was flying straight and level the only way to break the lock would be manually in the aircraft, an object breaking the lock, jamming or a system malfunction.

I already posted the video where this is proven wrong, but you either didn't watch it or don't understand it. How about watching it?

Again we need to know exactly how the system works in this regard, so leaving it to others much more in the know than I if they are out there.

Watch the video. You can watch the points where Chad Underwood's own video proves Chad Underwood wrong. It shows he loses lock when he changes cameras, Mick West points those instances out, but they are hard to miss, and they do exactly what Underwood says a lost lock does, so you can see for yourself Underwood is wrong when he says he doesn't lose lock. He obviously does, numerous times, using his own criteria for losing lock, ie the bars widen. You have to watch the whole video. Those broken locks are pointed out near the end, but you won't have the context without the preceding part of the video if you try to just watch the end.

Additionally could be getting this wrong but were they not being jammed at some point and would that not effectively play havoc with tracking and ranging?

The cameras operate on visible and infrared frequencies. The target is too far away for the laser rangefinder to work in Underwood's video, but in any case, the laser frequencies are not affected by jamming of microwaves or radio waves. When Underwood refers to jamming it would be jammable frequencies, like those used by radar or communications, not visible, infrared or laser frequencies.

What? I think it's you who doesn't know this system or understand at all how it works and is used.

originally posted by: Sublant

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Slyder12
If that is the case and the way I understand it providing Cmdr Underwood’s testimony is true or that is actually him in the interview, if indeed the aircraft was flying straight and level the only way to break the lock would be manually in the aircraft, an object breaking the lock, jamming or a system malfunction.

I already posted the video where this is proven wrong, but you either didn't watch it or don't understand it. How about watching it?

Again we need to know exactly how the system works in this regard, so leaving it to others much more in the know than I if they are out there.

Watch the video. You can watch the points where Chad Underwood's own video proves Chad Underwood wrong. It shows he loses lock when he changes cameras, Mick West points those instances out, but they are hard to miss, and they do exactly what Underwood says a lost lock does, so you can see for yourself Underwood is wrong when he says he doesn't lose lock. He obviously does, numerous times, using his own criteria for losing lock, ie the bars widen. You have to watch the whole video. Those broken locks are pointed out near the end, but you won't have the context without the preceding part of the video if you try to just watch the end.

Additionally could be getting this wrong but were they not being jammed at some point and would that not effectively play havoc with tracking and ranging?

The cameras operate on visible and infrared frequencies. The target is too far away for the laser rangefinder to work in Underwood's video, but in any case, the laser frequencies are not affected by jamming of microwaves or radio waves. When Underwood refers to jamming it would be jammable frequencies, like those used by radar or communications, not visible, infrared or laser frequencies.

What? I think it's you who doesn't know this system or understand at all how it works and is used.

You could take Underwood's example of when the bars widen at the end, and show it to a class of elementary school students, and ask them to raise their hands if they see the bars widen like that in the video you're about to play.

Then, play Underwood's video for them from the beginning, and I will bet the majority of the class will raise their hands when they see the bars widen, numerous times, and those times are pointed out in Mick West's video but it doesn't take any technical knowledge to see them. That's literally how non-technical and easy it is to see that Underwood is wrong when he says he doesn't lose lock earlier in the video.

If you want to rebut anything I said specifically, feel free, but I'm being specific about where Underwood is wrong saying the bars don't widen (meaning lose lock) earlier in his video, when very obviously they do widen, and often he is the cause of the lost lock when he changes cameras. I haven't heard you say, "I watched the video, and I don't see the bars widen before the end, so Underwood is right about not losing lock earlier in the video". Because if you watch Mick West point out when they widen, I don't know how you could miss it. I don't see how elementary students could miss it. And I don't think Chad Underwood missed it either, but I could be wrong about that last part.

Listen to what Underwood says, "They can't optically jam me" which is true. He talks about indications he has that his radar is being jammed, and he says he's not being jammed at optical frequencies specifically. I have no dispute with that. He doesn't say anything about the laser rangefinder being jammed.

Continuing to beat the dead horse...

raytheon.mediaroom.com...

“ATFLIR gives naval aviators a three- to five-fold increase in target-
recognition range. Its infrared and electro-optical (television format)
sensors can detect tactical threats at unprecedented ranges, delivering images
that are three to five times clearer than those afforded by any other
targeting pod now in production. Its powerful diode-pumped laser has been
demonstrated effective above 50,000 feet. Because its sensors and laser share a common optical path with continuous auto-boresight alignment, only ATFLIR
assures pinpoint targeting accuracy that minimizes collateral damage”

I don’t think a system like this would lose target lock by switching camera modes or zoom level. In fact I feel as Underwood states target lock was not lost until it veers to the left. Yes the bars appear to expand and retract slightly when modes are cycled but I think that may be how the system redraws them on the new image.

There is one instance in the middle of the video where the bars do expand out and it looks like the lock is lost but the target still remains in the centre of the boresight and the bars retract in on it again so I’m not entirely sure the lock was lost in that instance. The lock was obviously broken when the uap exited stage left.

originally posted by: Slyder12
Yes the bars appear to expand and retract slightly when modes are cycled but I think that may be how the system redraws them on the new image.

Underwood says, when the bars expand, lock is lost, and they widen because it's trying to regain lock. You're contradicting Underwood by saying you see the bars expand but it's not losing lock. He pretends like the bars don't widen earlier in the video, that's the problem, and you can see that they do widen.

Look at time index 16:42 in West's video which shows the problem with your interpretation:

When the lock is lost, the bars widen, you can see the object moving to the left. So it's not just a redrawing artifact, otherwise why is the object starting to move to the left? Your interpretation doesn't match that observation. So it's lost lock, just like at the end, the difference is it's able to regain lock that time but not at the end.

originally posted by: Slyder12
The lock was obviously broken when the uap exited stage left.

And critically, the angular rate at which it exits to the left is the same angular rate of motion the object has exhibited during the previous 30 seconds, how do you explain that if the object broke the lock? You can't explain it with your interpretation. You realize it's moving to the left at that same rate before the end, right? That's what this graph is showing, which you can check yourself, using the information on the display

www.metabunk.org...

So, it's extremely ignorant to suggest the object suddenly starts moving to the left at the end, when it's been moving to the left in the same apparent relative motion before that, as that graph clearly shows. My hypothesis is that Chad Underwood likely knows it's been moving to the left the entire time, and he's just pretending to not understand what the video really shows, because I think he's part of the new psy-op hypothesized in the following video. It's the only way I can understand how we are shown a batman balloon and then fed a story it's not a batman balloon, and how Chad Underwood can say the object starts moving to the left at the end when I can't believe any pilot would not understand the information on his display showing it's been moving to the left at the same rate before that. He doesn't seem like an idiot to me and he would basically have to be incompetent to believe what he says, and I don't think he is incompetent. He's a government employee and we are seeing complete nonsense from the government, it seems like this is as good a way to explain Chad Underwood misinterpreting his own video intentionally the same way we are getting fake stories about a batman balloon not being a batman balloon, a psy-op is the only hypothesis that makes sense. As Greenewald says, the government experts can't be as incompetent as these stories are presenting them, and I think he's absolutely right! They aren't incompetent, they are just pretending to be incompetent.

a reply to: 19Bones79

I thought the UFO was the damn dot in the watermark logo! Huge fail

a reply to: Ectoplasm8
Or perhaps the batman balloon looks a lot like the UFO! Psyop!

I think it’s a big win that the military is at least speaking publicly about this stuff. It used to be just denial or deception but never admitting that whatever was in question might actually be a UFO. Maybe this is the only way they felt they could start some sort of disclosure without looking like jerks

originally posted by: DamianSicks6
I think it’s a big win that the military is at least speaking publicly about this stuff. It used to be just denial or deception but never admitting that whatever was in question might actually be a UFO. Maybe this is the only way they felt they could start some sort of disclosure without looking like jerks

If Greenewald's theory is right and it seems like the theory which best fits the facts we have, then the whole point of the psy op is to make themselves look like jerks or incompetent idiots, and there is no disclosure, so we are all going to be disappointed in the 180 day report on UAPs.