The Pentagon Destroyed Emails Of Luis Elizondo: Here's How It Went Down

a reply to: sean

Hmmm, man that makes no sense, especially at 25k ft and an object at that distance you wouldn't even be able to see it. Unless, of course something tipped them off and/or this object is bigger than thought and they got it on radar.

That's the point of systems like ATFLIR. ATFLIR is an electro-optical camera system designed to help pilots see targets on the ground at 40 nm (46 miles) and 50,000 feet. Since it's an EO system, with a thermal capability, it can see targets in the air as well. It's not an IRST system, which is designed to track airborne targets passively, but it can be used to track airborne targets, as we see here. The original FLIR system was simply giving a night vision capability, especially to pilots and was pretty impressive. The new ATFLIR system is light years ahead of what that system was.

originally posted by: sean
That is a triangle with a 8.42nm distance and down angle distance with a hypotenuse of 9.37nm!! That is a lot of distance. The camera is zoomed in a lot, but wow it doesn't even change it's zoom once it locks on either. Then at lock the object is 4.4nm.

Now you're getting on track, so at -26 degrees, from 25000 feet, the surface of the water at the center of the image is 9.37nm away, we could round it to 9.4 nm, to the nearest .1 nm.

So the UFO at target lock is 4.4 nm away from the plane, and since the water is 9.4 nm away as sighted behind the UFO, that means along the hypotenuse you calculated, it's 5 nm from the water, so it's actually 0.6 nm closer to the plane than it is to the water. Are you seeing now that Mick West's analysis is correct?

originally posted by: karl 12
Actually looked into all the highly irregular AATIP contradictions or the way Pentagon FOIA protocol was co-opted and laws changed?
..
Like it or not there are some extremely uncomfortable (and unequivocable) facts being presented in this video - certainly don't agree with everything (jiust like I don't disagree with everything in your post) but I guess my question to you is why are you not addressing them?

When Tom DeLonge did his "Ask Me Anything" thread here on ATS, someone asked him how does he know he's not part of a disinformation operation (which seems like a reasonable question given the intelligence backgrounds of so many ATS staff).

Tom's answer was that his advisors were intel, not counter-intel. Of course that implies that intelligence sources are more trustworthy that counterintelligence sources. So who was his main source? Lue Elizondo with 20 years experience in counter-intelligence. So, Tom's answer made me wonder if he understood Lue Elizondo's background.

Tom Delonge AMA posts, page 1

francogirotti Q: Hi tom , how can we be sure you're not a disinformer , I say that I find it strange that by defending the Masons are a seeker of truth .
Tom DeLonge A: I assembled Advisors from very specific parts of the Government, not the areas that have active counter-intel programs. Yes, Intelligence, but not couter-intel.

But what did the TV show "Unidentified" say about Lue Elizondo in Season 2 Episode 2, near the beginning of the show (8:45)?
"Lue Elizondo may be the most significant US official to ever claim the UFO phenomenon is real
For two decades, he served as a counter-intelligence officer, for the department of defense."

So according to Tom Delonge's own criteria, Elizondo's background should at least raise some questions, so should Susan Gough's, so yes, we should question everything.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hey Zaphod, do you know if the ATFLIR is slewed to and then locked onto an AA target manually completely independent of AA radar or is it slaved to AA radar and tracked that way.

I know for ground operations you would use it to get a positive ID on target and laser designate but in AA engagements your primary source of locking on would be your AA radar.

I understand ATFLIR was used to get some sort of visual image as the crafts were BVR, would standard procedure be to lock on with AA radar and slave the ATFLIR automatically if that can be done to get the image.

I know there was talk of jamming in some of these events. That would mean AA radar was being used in these engagements no?

I guess basically what I'm asking is wouldn't AA radar have been used in all the ATFLIR video instances to lock onto the target initially?

Wouldn't the AA radar give you far more information regarding the capability of these craft, information we don't have.

originally posted by: Slyder12
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hey Zaphod, do you know if the ATFLIR is slewed to and then locked onto an AA target manually completely independent of AA radar or is it slaved to AA radar and tracked that way.

The audio of the Gofast video suggests there's more than one option, around time index 1:40, it sounds like someone asked him if boxed the target manually. and he replies that he didn't.

After he gets target lock, someone asks him:

"Did you box a moving target?"

He answers,

"No, it's on autotrack"

I agree there must be more data we don't have (or at least was at one time), and I also think the pilots are withholding some eyewitness information from us beyond that, because what Kevin Day says the pilots said doesn't agree with what the pilots have said in public, referring to David Fravor and Chad Underwood specifically.

a reply to: Slyder12

Both actually. In the case of an F-18F, the WSO in the back seat can slew it manually and use it as an IRST style system. In an F-18E, it's usual going to be tied to the radar, because the pilot doesn't want to be looking down in the cockpit. He can use radar to find the general area of the target and then manually slew it to look though, and spend less time looking down.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Very good, thanks for the info.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes, I agree that his analyses makes sense now with the gimbal having it's axis separate from the jet. I was trying fit in what the pilots eye witness and reporting that the object was flying low, but @ 1.92nm? How could they be that far off? As you said, there are things in video that don't make sense and obviously missing data and the craft was maybe flying low at one point? Anyways, I am still on the fence with parallax though. You can see in the beginning of the video the white object is moving faster than the background. It appears the the pilot is manually moving the gimbal to catch up to the object to get a lock and only then do you see the background sweeping along. I would also add to all this that the range and angle is changing and getting smaller and the angle wider, but the aspect of the plane is somewhat still the same. I don't know what to make of that.

originally posted by: sean
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You can see in the beginning of the video the white object is moving faster than the background. It appears the the pilot is manually moving the gimbal to catch up to the object to get a lock and only then do you see the background sweeping along.

Glad we agree on the distances now.

Yes, you mentioned this issue before the lock earlier, and I didn't address it then because I wanted to focus on the distance first which was the simpler problem to solve.

What you have to remember is the motion is apparent motion. Before target lock, the UFO has apparent motion, the background doesn't. After lock the UFO does not have apparent motion, the background does. But, of course, the lock does not change any actual motions at all, and don't forget the third very important thing which doesn't appear in the video at all, the F/A 18 plane the video is taken from is moving. So regardless of the speed of the UFO, if it's very roughly halfway between the F/A-18 and the water, there HAS to be some parallax, unless the UFO is going in the same direction and speed as the F/A-18, and it's easy to show that's not the case.

If you want to calculate how fast the UFO is actually moving, it gets a little more complicated because there are more things to consider, plus you have to estimate some things instead of using the precise display readings like we did for the distance calculation, so that's why West comes up with an approximate range for the speed of the UFO and not a solid calculation. I went through his numbers and I think if he's off, it's not by much. I think he might have admitted those calculations could be a bit off because of the estimations part, but he's quite confident it's not going anywhere near 2/3 the speed of sound as claimed in the TTSA TV show and I'm pretty sure he's right about that.

Well we're also looking at a heavily sanitized video. We don't know what happen before or after this video. Why did they go out to look for it? Did they continue to chase it? Did it zip off at high speed? Did it splash down? It's pretty mind boggling to think of a craft with no wings no signs of conventional thrust. Whatever that is inside this craft is countering gravity creating thrust and at the same time canceling the forces upon it. It's mass. That is why it doesn't create a sonic boom, there is nothing there to chop through the atmosphere to create a boom. Some kind of field around it maybe two fields one to drive it and another field to cancel out the mass. That's nuts. It's really starting to give credence to all the sightings all these years.

Hell I have seen some pretty strange stuff myself. I have seen a black disc up close in the 1990's and still the same qualities, not a sound and hovering. When I say close, I mean within a rock throwing distance. I saw good detail of it and objects sticking out of it's surface.

I saw a disc fly close to the surface of the moon and watched it curve around the moon as it flew off the edge of the moon. I was looking through my 8 inch reflector telescope at approximately 250x power. So I knew it was close as the craft curved with the Moons curve as it went around to the backside of the Moon. This happen in the summer of 1986, Reagan years and shortly after the Challenger incident in Jan I believe of that year. They grounded astronauts for like 3 years. I don't know of anything flying around the Moon at that time. It looked like a silver disc literally the hue of silver when light reflects off it. It had shiny patches and dirty patches on it's surface like tarnished silver.

I've seen 2 other weird craft as well. Silver tic tac looking thing with a stretched out nose like a egg shape stretched out. The size of it looked like as big as 4 school buses 2x2. Probably 1000ft in the air. Stationary for about 2-3 minutes. Hell I thought was a tethered mylar balloon at first. Then I started to see houses and tree's and storage facility and cars going by in it's reflection. Realizing that it's quite large and bigger than your average balloon. Then it starts to move very slowly North straight as an arrow at a very slow pace and went over the mountains. IT had no cockpit, props, no wings, no sound, no seams, no grooves, no antenna. It never waived around erratic like a balloon would. Mind boggling.

I saw a very large black obtuse chevron fly over my head really fast heading directly west to east. Shortly after that, the Phoenix lights was reported. That thing flew in from the West coast I bet. It was very very fast, but from my vantage point the tip to tip was like horizon to horizon, of course it wasn't that big literally, but it was BIG. Maybe the length of a aircraft carrier. It stretched beyond my neighborhood on both sides. So I estimate that it stretched out with a wingspan of like 3 city blocks if not more.

So from this coming out now it's like I feel vindicated. I'm telling the truth as it happen. Somebody out there has got a bunch of toys and they aren't sharing one bit.

a reply to: Zaphod58

This thread kind of died down, but I was wondering what your thoughts are on this...

I wonder if there is any significance to why the object is white instead of black?? Many white things have a whitening agent mixed in. Under UV laser light they shine bright. I wonder if that is to disrupt flir?

a reply to: sean

FLIR systems show temperature differential. You can set the hotter object to show as either black or white. Sometimes they flip between the two, because one gives slightly better detail. There's no real significance to it other than the pilot preference.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Right, I understand the heat differential, but I was just thinking maybe there was an application that we don't know of. I know you wouldn't want to paint yourself bright colors of course lol. However, in the radar, infrared, UV world it might have a use. I thought I would bring that up as I was playing around with a UV laser the other day and most white paper, plastics etc would glow really bright because of the whitening agent mixed in it. Some plastics not white still had a chemical in it that shined bright with UV laser light reflecting off it. Reminds me of scorpions glowing under UV. Maybe they use it as a type of sensor. Scorpions generally hide from UV and like shady area's. Scientists theorized that the scorpions entire body acts like one large eye. Hmm..

Chris Lehto, a former fighterpilot, is debunking Mick West on the FLIR videos:

originally posted by: sean
a reply to: Zaphod58

Right, I understand the heat differential, but I was just thinking maybe there was an application that we don't know of. I know you wouldn't want to paint yourself bright colors of course lol. However, in the radar, infrared, UV world it might have a use. I thought I would bring that up as I was playing around with a UV laser the other day and most white paper, plastics etc would glow really bright because of the whitening agent mixed in it. Some plastics not white still had a chemical in it that shined bright with UV laser light reflecting off it. Reminds me of scorpions glowing under UV. Maybe they use it as a type of sensor. Scorpions generally hide from UV and like shady area's. Scientists theorized that the scorpions entire body acts like one large eye. Hmm..

I know the F-18's ATFLIR has both infrared and visible light sensors, and the F-18 has radar, but you're talking about UV, does it have UV sensors? I never heard of UV sensors on aircraft but I'm no expert.

In visible light, white reflects more solar radiation than darker colors, so the white looks brighter.
But in infrared, because of that, the white areas don't tend to get as hot, so they emit less infrared.

So there are two different effects of using white in different frequencies, highly visible in visible light and not so visible in infrared. The type of paint or coating can affect radar but I don't think it's the color so much as the material in that frequency.

You can see the darker paint of "FINNAIR" lettering gives off more heat in the IR image, in the "white is hot" mode:



www.youtube.com...
What's interesting to me in those photos is the air coming out the back of the jet engine is invisible in visible light, yet highly visible in infrared. No stealth technology here obviously but that heat signature is something stealth aircraft have to deal with, like maybe mixing cooler air with the exhaust to make it less visible.

That gives us a clue to why when we look at the tail end of a distant plane in infrared, we may not always clearly see the plane, if there's a big plume of hot air between our camera and the jet. That's sort of why these four F-15s look like featureless Tic-Tac shapes, we are seeing mostly their heat signature in infrared, due to the distance and zoom level. This is "black is hot" mode, the earlier IR images were "white is hot" mode.


www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: AtomPal
Chris Lehto, a former fighterpilot, is debunking Mick West on the FLIR videos:

My respect for pilots knowldege dropped after watching him speak, and he's not just a pilot, he's a flight instructor! He really embarrasses himself when he says the laws of physics don't allow an object 5 miles away and 10 miles away to be in focus at the same time, which millions of photographers know for sure is an absolutely ridiculous claim since they do that all the time. Then to "prove" his point, he shows some objects close to the camera at different distances. Well yes it's harder to get objects at different distances in focus when they are close to the camera, but this does NOT prove his claim about 5 miles versus 10 miles, it only makes him look extremely ignorant of photography even though he presents himself as an "expert" on such. He far overestimates his knowledge and abilities and it's very embarrassing.

Then I'm sure the Navy will love him for this (He's an Air Force pilot), he claims the "Range" sensor is "just guessing" and it not accurate. His proof? His completely misinformed and ignorant "knowledge" of photography.

There have been more videos, Mick West made a response video, and Chris Lehto accepted that his initial claim about turning in the Gimbal video was wrong, and he bought a sim of the F-18 to use that specific aircraft performance. Someone on Metabunk got the same sim and they again claimed to have shown that Lehto is still not estimating the turn correctly even though Lehto admitted he was wrong in his first video, before he saw Mick West's response. Lehto's initial claim about the turning radius seemed completely ridiculous too (did I say he already admitted he was wrong about that claim?). He showed some airport map of the flight path that landing aircraft are supposed to take which specified the turning radius, and he claimed that was the turning radius the plane in the gimbal video would have used. What??? The F-18 in Gimbal was over the atlantic ocean I think, they didn't have to follow any airport pattern, and Lehto already admitted they didn't do what he initially claimed. It's really odd he would even make such a claim, I don't know what's up with Lehto, he seems like a nice enough man, but he's not representing pilots in a very good light.

Here's the metabunk thread discussing Lehto's gofast video claims:
F-16 Pilot Chris Lehto's Interpretation of the GoFast footage

Here's the metabunk thread discussing Lehto's gimabl video claims:
F-16 Pilot- Chris Lehto analyses Gimbal footage

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That's getting into Fun With IR. IRST, FLIR, ATFLIR, and any other IR search and track system are great, because they're totally passive. So there's no warning that the other aircraft is being tracked. It's utterly useless for targeting a radar guided missile, so it requires getting in close to use an IR missile, but if you're behind them, they have no warning you're there, like with radar systems. But, and it's a pretty big But, they're pretty susceptible to angles and atmospheric conditions. An IRST system that's head on is going to have a much smaller heat signature to detect. A system that isn't at fairly high altitude, with extremely cold air between it and the target, is going to have the range decreased, because the air between it and the target is warmer, so there's less contrast for the seeker to detect. When you see an IRST system, no matter who makes it, that gives a range figure, that's range at the optimum angle, with optimum atmospheric conditions. Realistically it's going to be quite a bit shorter. Still useful, but not as useful as some claims.

As for UV sensors, they're mostly used for missile seekers, such as the Stinger. If you read the manual for launching a Stinger, it requires being pointed at clear sky for calibration before it can be launched. This lets it get a background UV signature to use after it's launched. They're also used for Missile Approach Warning Systems. There are quite a few MAWS sensors that use IR/UV detection for both fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Thanks for the UV info. It sounds like using UV makes it harder for the stinger to get fooled by the flares like as IR-only missile might get fooled by them, that's interesting.

I can see why the IR is susceptible to angles, since the heat signature looks a lot different from different angles for one reason.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
He really embarrasses himself when he says the laws of physics don't allow an object 5 miles away and 10 miles away to be in focus at the same time, which millions of photographers know for sure is an absolutely ridiculous claim since they do that all the time.

The fact that it is possible for a photographer to disable autofocus on a camera and fiddle around making it focus to infinity or adjust hyperfocal distance is 100% irrelevant when it comes to the FLIR footage, which clearly has autofocus. So it is not even remotely possible in this context. A figtherpilot does not really have time to swap lenses, set his focus, sitting with his latest manfrotto tripod to get the perfect landscape shots while sipping coffee.

originally posted by: AtomPal
The fact that it is possible for a photographer to disable autofocus on a camera and fiddle around making it focus to infinity or adjust hyperfocal distance is 100% irrelevant when it comes to the FLIR footage, which clearly has autofocus. So it is not even remotely possible in this context. A figtherpilot does not really have time to swap lenses, set his focus, sitting with his latest manfrotto tripod to get the perfect landscape shots while sipping coffee.

What does any of that have to do with 5 miles away and 10 miles away being in focus at the same time? That's the context of Lehto's argument, keep that in mind.

Now if you make a false analogy and argue about objects in the same room as Lehto's camera, like Lehto does, then it makes a difference, but it's different for far away things.

So here's a photography lesson which you can pass along to your friend Lehto if you like. I've had over a dozen lenses of various focal lengths and I've seen hundreds, and the focus scale varies depending on focal length, but, they all have one thing in common: As you approach infinity (completely parallel light rays), the focus adjustments get smaller and smaller.

Now the first thing to keep in mind is that the source video "GoFast" is not high definition, it's low resolution and while you can tell if something is badly out of focus, the resolution is too poor to see tiny differences in focus, which is all we will get, even with autofocus, at distances of 5 miles and 10 miles.

I'll use an example lens, if you could find the focal ring for ATFLIR, you would see that just like this lens and every other lens, as you approach infinity, the focus adjustments become tiny.



Here's an exercise to increase your understanding of how the distance numbers get closer together as you approach infinity, if you want to learn something.

The red scale on top is feet. Locate the 10 and the 15, between them would be 12.5. Now look at how much distance is between 12.5 feet, and infinity on the focus ring. Compare that to 25 feet, it's about at the halfway point, right?

Do this again comparing 25 feet to infinity, what number is halfway? 50 feet is about halfway, right? Do you see the pattern here? Every time you double the distance, you get about halfway to infinity on the focus adjustment.

So here's the exercise, draw the 50 feet and infinity symbols on a piece of paper similar to how they appear on the lens. Draw a vertical line under each of them.
Next on the piece of paper we will continue the pattern of doubling the distance and drawing another line halfway to infinity.

So draw a vertical line halfway between 50 feet and infinity, that will be the approximate focus setting for 100 feet.
Next draw a vertical line halfway between that line for 100 feet and infinity, that will be the focus setting for 200 feet.
Are you starting to see how this works? Now keep drawing more lines that way, until you've drawn lines for all these distances in feet:

50
100
200
400
800
1600
3200
6400
12800
25600

So if you did the exercise properly, you should have a line at 25,600 feet that's very close to infinity
That's pretty close to 26,400 feet which is 5 miles, close enough for this example.

So let's say the autofocus focuses on 25600 or 26400 feet. It's already very close to infinity, so things 10 miles away or further are going to be close enough to being in focus that you aren't going to be able to tell the difference in a low quality video like Gofast. That's the fact that you and Chris Lehto seem to be completely missing. If you follow Lehto's logic, with the plane in focus in this image, the moon should be out of focus, but, it's not significantly out of focus:



So even if you use autofocus on an object 5 miles away, something 10 miles away is not going to look significantly out of focus on a low resolution video like Gofast.

The focus settings on the lens also suggest why Lehto can't get objects at different distances in the same room in focus...you can see it makes a big difference at close range, but there's almost no difference 5-10 miles away.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Chris Lehto clearly says in the beginning he is talking about operating a FLIR pod when flying, how many F16 with FLIR pods have you and Mick West flown?

Chris Lehto is granted not an optics expert, but I will take his word on whats possible to see on a FLIR over someone who have absolutely no clue how to fly an F16 and operate a FLIR any day.

a reply to: AtomPal
So which version of what Chris Lehto says do you believe?
Do you believe what he said in his first video?
Or do you believe what he said in his second video, where he said he was wrong in his first video?

That's the problem with putting too much confidence in what any one person says, a person can be wrong, even pilots.
It's not even debatable, he even admitted he was wrong in his first video.

Apparently he's closer in his second video but maybe he's still off a bit.

Lehto is right about one thing though, optics follow the laws of physics. Unfortunately he has a huge understanding of how the physics of optics works, and they don't change just because he's flying a plane.