1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/introducing-the-paracast/

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!
    Dismiss Notice

Pentagon UFO Study - Media Monitoring

Discussion in 'The UFO Forum' started by uforadio, Mar 9, 2018.



  1. Constance

    Constance Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages:
    6,947
    Likes Received:
    4,139
    Right, @blowfish . Many people don't remember it because they haven't read it or even heard of it, or read to any extent the written history of the modern 'ufo' phenomenon, including scholarly research into earlier, similar, reports of such phenomena. NICAP has the whole Rand Report at its website, at this link:

    The RAND Corporation on UFOs !
     
    blowfish and Thomas R Morrison like this.
  2. Constance

    Constance Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages:
    6,947
    Likes Received:
    4,139
    ETA: The epigraph at the beginning of the Rand Report was never more true than it is today:

    "Common sense is the quintessence of the experiences and prejudices of its time. It is a most unreliable advisor when one is confronted with a perfectly new situation. Gustav Naan"
     
    blowfish and Thomas R Morrison like this.
  3. Realm

    Realm Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    408
    Location:
    -
    I took a closer look at the timeline of the TTSA to see what role Elizondo, AATIP and those released videos actually could have had for the existence of the company.

    First a recap of Elizondo's timeline:

    DeLonge on TTSA announcement event on October 11:
    Transcript of To the Stars Academy Press Conference | Openminds.tv

    NYT on Elizondo's resignation letter (which resulted in a no results FOIA response):
    Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program

    Leslie Kean on her Facebook page:
    WP article on December 16, 2017:
    Head of Pentagon’s secret ‘UFO’ office sought to make evidence public

    So according to these, Elizondo got those videos cleared for release in August, resigned in October, finished his work there in November, days before joining TTSA, and DeLonge claims to have learned even his name only some days before. So assuming nobody lies, those videos were cleared before Elizondo had any direct contact with DeLonge.

    The timeline of the TTSA is detailed in their Offering Circular:
    So formed in February, Puthoff&Semivan appointed directors in March, DeLonge arranging business agreements with himself in April, and shares to Puthoff&Semivan in May. Interestingly, they apparently already knew in May there will be two additional directors, which ended up being Elizondo and Justice:
    That was supposedly around 5 months before DeLonge even met Elizondo. Since directors where specifically limited to 5, did they really know they need a "Director of Global Security & Special Programs" before knowing about Elizondo, or did they just pick that number for some other reason ?

    In any case, according to the version of the story DeLonge has told, the company was formed long before there was any public knowledge of AATIP, Elizondo or his decision to become part of this, or those videos. And that document doesn't give any direct indication their unrealistic plans on whatever space-time metrics, telepathy and so on had anything to do with that stuff. Which is in line with that crazy Joe Rogan episode, where DeLonge demonstrated he believes just about anything, including badly made CGI videos of supposed military craft based on alien technology, so he could just as well have dreamed up that company based on those ideas:


    If we simply assume none of them have lied, the links between TTSA and the rest of this stuff are looking rather lose, more like an afterthought. And considering how badly TTSA has been messing up, it looks like a rather unfortunate and unnecessary part of this story. If Elizondo had simply told NYT that there was a program called AATIP, and the already leaked Nimitz material was real, we would have the good parts, and avoided the rest.

    Looking at that timeline also made me properly realize important details regarding that $600,000 loan from his not a hot dog stand:
    So that loan he gave himself was to offset the losses of TTS, and half of it dates back almost a year before TTSA was even formed. TTSA then inherited those liabilities from TTS. So he is using that new investment money to pay for his past losses of the "entertainment division", which was supposedly the money making part. That has to be why TTSA had to be formed as this mess of a company with all the strange connections to the previous ones. Otherwise it would have been pretty difficult to channel new investment money to cover his earlier losses that have next to nothing to do with his current pipe dreams. Guaranteed royalty of $100,000 also isn't a bad deal from a business that's losing money.

    I wonder how many of those starry-eyed "investors" realize they are really financing the past, not the future?
     
    Elendil, USI Calgary and CuCullen like this.
  4. blowfish

    blowfish Whittingham

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    836
    Location:
    In space and passing through time.
    Realm: Good post and Constance you hit it on the nail. I watched Stanton's interview which was excellent and we only see the glimpse of data that they keep back. Classified material will never see the light of day if affects national security simple as Stanton has said over and over again. Therefore we are left with the snippets of information and eyewitness accounts.
     
    Constance likes this.
  5. Hollywood Tomfortas

    Hollywood Tomfortas Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    306
    Occupation:
    Cat Butler
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Billy Cox really socks it to TTSA about their need for a new game plan.

    http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15641/ttsa-needs-new-game-plan/

    OK, seriously. What’s up with the molasses-slow dribble of jet fighter/UFO videos being posted by this To The Stars Academy thing? Is there a plan here? Some sort of strategy not immediately obvious to the naked eye? Or is this what it’s beginning to look like, that nobody’s really in charge? . . .
     
    Realm likes this.
  6. Constance

    Constance Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages:
    6,947
    Likes Received:
    4,139
  7. blowfish

    blowfish Whittingham

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    836
    Location:
    In space and passing through time.
    Constance : Good repost and who paid for the RAND Study in 1968?
    How many other official and non official reports were done which have not come to light?
    Yes it ROSWELL and who has the official report?
    Also were copies made and sent to US Allies ?
     
    Constance likes this.
  8. Constance

    Constance Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages:
    6,947
    Likes Received:
    4,139
    Good questions, @blowfish. Essential questions touching the enforced ignorance and ambiguity in which we've had to live for seven decades concerning the nature of the extended reality within which we live and the conditions of our existence. I don't think our existence is threatened by species from elsewhere; I came to that conviction in the 90s, having spent several years reading ufo history, databases, and case studies of the manifestations of ufo phenomena in our time and research concerning historical cases of similar phenomena in the deep past. If these others wanted to destroy us or our planet, they would have done so long ago. If they intended to somehow take over the earth and displace us as natives of this planetary world, they would have done so before we'd damaged this planet's ecology to the extent we have. There's nothing to be afraid of, but knowing so little of what is known by the military/government/MIC, most people are left vulnerable to existential fear and dread about the reality of living civilizations beyond our planet, and prey to anxieties and wild speculations about what these 'others' might do to us, our families, our world.

    There have always been, since the late 1940s, individuals high in the military and intelligence agencies who were well-informed about, and attempting to deal with, the accumulating evidence of visitation of our planet by more evolved, more advanced, species, and who wanted this information to be shared with the public. At various times in the ongoing argument concerning the obligation to share this information with the rest of us, those pushing for disclosure came closer to accomplishing it. But they failed to persuade those highest up in the power structure, and here we are today still wondering and frustrated by how much that is known is not yet known to us. This is both absurd and morally outrageous.

    I like Richard Dolan's book titled, approximately, After Disclosure, which forecasts the results of eventual disclosure, which is inevitable in this world so long lied to. Sure, there will be chaotic feelings in pockets of the populace, but the organized world we've built on earth will not come apart at the seams. But many people will be angry that so much significant information -- very interesting information when we calm down and absorb it -- has been withheld from human societies as a whole. Dolan has an interesting chapter concerning the difficulties the PTB will have in responding to, justifying, the extent of this widespread cover-up of knowledge we all have a right to know. He speculates, reasonably, that the repercussions for instituted 'authority' -- a major loss of faith in governmental authority -- has become in itself a major motivation for continuing the cover-up. The whole situation created by all those who have withheld critically important knowledge from the rest of us has been a major fuck-up, a global mistake on a grand scale of folly.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2018
    Thomas R Morrison likes this.
  9. Realm

    Realm Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    408
    Location:
    -
    That's a good question, who is in charge? Let's see who's who, and who then could be in charge:
    We can cross out those who are just advisors/consultants, and the company is hardly run by the secretary/assistant of DeLonge or CFO who is just a contractor. Justice is a director of a division that doesn't really exist in practice, and he has been pretty invisible anyway.

    What about Tom's sister Kari? Before this she was "Chief Marketing and Product Officer of TTS since its inception in 2011". Most likely she is still doing the same stuff in practice, handling the entertainment stuff, just through the parent company now. It also doesn't look as bad to grant one's sister 5,000,000 stock options (worth $25 million with the prices they charge from the gullible investors) when she is at least listed as full-time TTSA employee, right?

    In any case, there isn't that much content to manage at the TTSA. Would you expect her to write down their "analysis" of the videos they publish, if they actually have someone who supposedly was actually investigating those for years? Although given their blunders with the "Go Fast" video, it doesn't look like anyone actually investigated anything. How about managing that website? Who do you think is actually pressing the button when they publish a new video for example? Tom? Kari? Nope, it's Joe Brisbois:
    Joe Brisbois (@JoeBrisbois) | Twitter

    He seems to be the one managing their COI-pages at least. I presume he is a web designer and TTSA is just one of his customers. He is marked as the author of the published content in the source code of various pages there and the internal address of the COI page is this (this opens the same page on your browser):
    TTSA Community of Interest

    So we are left with Tom Delonge, Elizondo, Puthoff and Semivan. The last two are marked as contractors and have their own consulting companies, and Semivan has been pretty invisible, and I still don't really understand his role in the company. In addition to his assistant and sister, DeLonge is the only one specified as full-time employee on their offering document (but that was before Elizondo joined the group).

    Tom is supposed to be just the interim CEO, and they are aiming to find someone to take his place. He has also pretty much disappeared from the scene, which is not that surprising after that disastrous Joe Rogan episode. Basically his only visible contribution is retweeting stuff that is published by the TTSA social media accounts, and those accounts are probably handled by Brisbois/mostly automatically by that platform when articles are being published. Which would also explain why those social media accounts are not actually responding to any questions and so on. There's nobody to handle those, and they haven't paid anyone to do that sort of thing. Even their press inquiries are outsourced to a PR company.

    Then we have Elizondo, their bouncer, who has been their public face, who has indicated being pretty much all in on this, but has lately given some distress signals on how he believes to be hated and so on. He has appeared to be going increasingly into a damage control mode in regards to their published content, avoiding specifics of their videos, and trying to stress what matters is the content he has seen but they haven't shown, similar to how Nolan has tried to defend their incorrect conclusions. With UFOs, the good data is always that which is not available, especially after the available data is exposed as something else than what it was supposed to be.

    I believe the TTSA is basically what the documents indicate and what we are seeing from the outside. DeLonge is in charge, in principle, but that's just because no one else is, and seeing his performance on Rogan, I'm not sure that's better than nothing. Most of the others are consultants, doing some occasional interviews/articles and having some meetings or so, but that's about it, at least as far as the visible results go. Elizondo is doing the PR/damage control, but seemingly would rather just take his position as the bouncer already.

    Now that they have published their promised 3 videos, 1 of which was an old one and the other two evidently parts of a single rather mundane video, it's unclear if they actually have anything else to offer. I would expect them to be currently having a crisis meeting or a couple to try to figure out how to deal with their grave mistakes with the Go Fast clip, but I'm not sure if they even care enough to do that. Since Elizondo even refused to admit their mistakes with that party balloon blunder, I'm not confident they will do that now either, especially since the implications are much more drastic. On the other hand, it will become pretty difficult to argue against undeniable mathematical facts.

    Since it's now obvious they haven't actually analyzed those videos properly, or done any basic sanity checks on the numbers, and haven't published the originals or other supporting evidence (CoC documents or FOIA responses), it doesn't look like they are that interested in investigating that stuff or delivering accurate information. It looks to be more about marketing for them. Their main focus is quite evidently collecting money from the credulous believers. Consequently, that's where the real story seems to be at this stage, following the money. There's some interesting stuff going on there, and there's a chance that won't be investigated just by those interested in UFOs.
     
    Elendil, CuCullen and S.R.L. like this.
  10. Constance

    Constance Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages:
    6,947
    Likes Received:
    4,139
    ETA: @blowfish also asked "who paid for the RAND Study in 1968?" and
    "How many other official and non official reports were done which have not come to light?"

    My impression is that RAND, like Battelle, (and most probably other think tanks) were contracted to and closely allied with the military and intelligence agencies of our government. As the paper I linked the other day at NICAP (written by a RAND scientist in the early years of research into and discussions of the modern ufo phenomena) indicated, his paper was written and stored at RAND {and shared with the institutional community of insiders} but not put forward as a public statement by RAND. Decades passed before his paper became available to citizen researchers. Nor did scientists at the Battelle Institute publish their research concerning ufos and 'memory metal' to the public. Jacques Vallee referred to citizen ufo researchers as "an invisible college" -- invisible by necessity since most scientists involved in it could not risk their reputations by acknowledging their research concerning ufos. What military and governmental insiders have learned about ufos has similarly been sequestered in committees/enclaves of researchers from cooperating institutions that have not reported out to the public. Re 'who paid for all this?', naturally the public in the taxes it pays into the Fed's coffers.
     
    blowfish likes this.
  11. Constance

    Constance Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages:
    6,947
    Likes Received:
    4,139
    @Realm, it seems to me that you waste a lot of energy fussing over what can and cannot be learned about the individuals we know to be involved with the TTS group and its projects, and attempting from limited data to undermine those projects before they are well-underway. See my recent post concerning the reluctance of scientists to publicly acknowledge their participation in ufo research since the beginnings of the modern ufo phenomenon. There might be many scientists already at work in association with and within the sponsorship of TTS, and it might be a long time before TTS publicly shares the eventual results of their work (if not their identities). Best thing to do, rationally, is to wait and see what emerges in months and years ahead from TTS's scientific projects. At this point, you're essentially trying to find your way around in a dark room with a very small flashlight.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2018
  12. Hollywood Tomfortas

    Hollywood Tomfortas Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    306
    Occupation:
    Cat Butler
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Interesting report from Garry Nolan about the process of how TTSA got the videos and released them. Got this from Fearless @Frank Stalter ’s UFO News Network on FB.
    =======

    Via Garry Nolan concerning the DoD declassified videos which were released through To The Stars Academy :
    —————————
    'The term RELEASE is where everyone is tripping up. These videos were obtained from a Freedom of Information Act filing. They were prepared internally at the DoD through a vetting process that allowed them to be released through FOI.

    You are not going to get the DoD to come out and "announce" there are such things as UFOs buzzing around our aircraft carrier groups. They did not actively "release". They passively allowed the FOIA process to occur.

    Now whether there was INTERNAL acquiescence to this that is a "hidden" active process by people other than Lue... probably you will never know. But we should be happy that it ended up the way it did (whether through active help, passive bureaucratic sleepiness, or otherwise).

    Active announcement/release would probably upset any White House to be upstaged in such a process as that should clearly be a government level announcement. What you got was people internally at the DoD who decided this information was worth getting out, made sure the video was properly vetted so as to not release "proprietary" data or US military capabilities, and then prepared for eventual FOI access. It was then accessed.'
     
    Realm and Constance like this.
  13. Constance

    Constance Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages:
    6,947
    Likes Received:
    4,139
    ETA, @Realm, given the secrecy in which ufo data is still held by the US government, it's pointless to complain that all such data is not being shared with the public. You're banging your head against a so-far immovable wall. Documents and data accessible to TTS through Luis Elizondo cannot all be made public because of the restrictive laws and structures in place inhibiting such public sharing. That doesn't mean that such documents and data cannot be shared privately by governmental and non-governmental researchers working together privately with this material.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2018
    Thomas R Morrison and blowfish like this.
  14. Constance

    Constance Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages:
    6,947
    Likes Received:
    4,139
    In short, @Realm, you're attacking and attempting to destroy the goose that might lay the golden egg.
     
    Thomas R Morrison and DROBNJAK like this.
  15. Realm

    Realm Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    408
    Location:
    -
    So according to the timeline I summarized before:
    And Leslie Kean said they were "cleared for release in August".

    So did he basically arrange at that time some review process and storage to somewhere with some useful keywords that he could later use in a FOIA request?

    Kean reportedly first met Elizondo in a confidential meeting on October 4, the same day his resignation letter is supposedly timestamped:
    On the Trail of a Secret Pentagon U.F.O. Program

    I believe Kean told those videos were shown to her in that meeting. So if those were acquired through the FOIA, when was that request filed and how soon did they get the response? Did Elizondo file it while he was still working in the department? Or did they actually show the videos before they got such responses?

    Kean reportedly still has the documents that show how those were cleared, but refuses to show those. Why? TTSA has told not to? Are they hiding the exact keywords how those can be found?

    Video shows Navy jet's encounter with a UFO, group says - CNNPolitics

    So, is "reporting channels" FOIA, or something else?

    It seems to me they are either hiding something because proper processes were not actually followed, or alternatively because the processes are too mundane (FOIA) and show they don't have the sort of connections some believers are counting on, but just had some keywords for processes that anyone could use. They pretty much stated the latter while releasing the third video.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2018
  16. Constance

    Constance Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages:
    6,947
    Likes Received:
    4,139
    As I'm sure you understand, FOIA responses are legally required to be provided by government agencies (though rarely easily obtained from those agencies, and then largely consisting of black mark-throughs that obscure the really significant information).

    If TTS is holding back -- in your fevered imagination"hiding something" -- obtained through inside channels between some DOD employees and significant citizen researchers, that's another situation entirely, and equally one that does not guarantee disclosure to we the people.

    Maybe you should run for Congress and attempt to change the security regulations that block information re ufos from the public. You certainly seem to have enough energy for that kind of work. ;)
     
    Thomas R Morrison likes this.
  17. blowfish

    blowfish Whittingham

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    836
    Location:
    In space and passing through time.
    Whoever keeps the large stash of files should think about the hard work done by credible researchers like Stanton, Don and Gene , Chris who been around the field for a longtime. Instead of snippet release dump the lot of classified UFO files including Roswell file held inside the vault for these researchers and the general public too. Instead, it a ongoing drama of those folks getting a drip feed videos.
     
  18. Realm

    Realm Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    408
    Location:
    -
    I rechecked a couple of earlier pieces since FOIA doesn't really make sense with the timeline as I detailed before. Looks like Nolan gave incorrect information, again. They almost certainly didn't use FOIA, and it seems Elizondo most likely didn't use proper processes all the way, although he might have though he did at the time. That's what they are most likely trying to hide now, yet another mistake/oversight. It also makes sense they now emphasized how others could get those videos through FOIA, and didn't mention chain-of-custody documentation anymore. After all, once those FOIAs return results, their improper processes do not really matter anymore.

    This seems to be what actually happened:
    UFOs - Documenting The Evidence

    What Is Up With Those Pentagon UFO Videos?

    So nothing was declassified, as it wasn't classified in the first place. DoD denies releasing anything, because they didn't. NYT and Kean refuse to show the documents, because they are not what they should be, more like partial internal process documentation. TTSA wants others to file FOIAs, as it gets them off the hook. They haven't released their much hyped CoC documents, as they don't actually have the proper ones.

    So once again, TTSA seems to be the untrustworthy party and origin of incorrect information and ensuing confusion. Although their failures with the processes and unsubstantiated claims of the CoC are much smaller problem than their invalid claims on what the videos actually show. Interestingly, according to the former blog, the Gimbal footage has also been leaked earlier but in a limited manner:
     
    CuCullen likes this.
  19. Realm

    Realm Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    408
    Location:
    -
    Compare these:
    GIMBAL VIDEO

    2004 USS NIMITZ FLIR1 VIDEO

    With this:
    2015 GO FAST FOOTAGE

    These supposedly went through the same processes at around the same time, and should have the same kind of CoC and documentation.
     
  20. Realm

    Realm Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    408
    Location:
    -
    I can't resist the temptation anymore, I just have to rip apart these earlier calculations Bruce Maccabee has made (as copied from Metabunk). Remember that he seemed to be the go to expert for Garry Nolan for example:
    Let's go through those step by step:
    This to me is already a good example how he doesn't seem to understand how much accuracy matters in these calculations. 4.1 nm=24912ft, so he is just introduced an additional error of around 90 feet for no good reason. The altimeter is likely highly accurate, giving figures with 10 feet accuracy, so there's no sense to lose accuracy like that from the get go.

    So he is using 4.1 slant range to object, which corresponds to the video between 4237 and 4239 seconds. At that time, the video clearly indicates the camera is pointed 28-29 degrees below the aircraft axis. So why the hell is he calculating sin 22? It was 22 degrees at the beginning of the video, when we don't even know the range yet, but we know pretty much for certain it's more than 4.4nm, as that is the first figure the rangefinder gives and then it starts to decrease.

    So he is making his calculations on figures that do not even match those that are clearly visible in the video.

    Let's see if even that simple calculation is actually correct with those figures:
    4.1-4.1*sin(22)=2.564
    Nope, he messed that one up as well, introducing yet another error of 0.1nm. Was that because he actually used more accurate altitude in that calculation than his awful rounding? Nope, that would just cause a bigger error. He just couldn't calculate 4.1 – 1.54.

    And yet another rounding from that already incorrect 2.46 to 2.5, luckily this time it reduces his earlier error somewhat.

    The correct altitude would be closer to 2.2nm. That's already more than 27% off!

    That's pretty unbelievable, considering the actual calculation, when using correct numbers, is pretty simple.

    Guess what: Even Google can do that in two steps, you don't even need a separate calculator.

    First write "25000 feet to nautical miles", and it responds "4.1144708". Then use that and write the rest of the equation to the search field in nautical miles, using the correct angle: "4.1144708-sin(28 degrees)*4.1" and it responds "2.18963739258". That's 4055 meters, which seems to be very close to the correct value.

    Which is basically just a lucky guess from him, since he doesn't seem to understand the parallax effect and doesn't even try to calculate how the plane was moving.

    He is almost certainly using an incorrect FOV, which should be 0.7 degrees, so that already introduces more than 2x error. I also cannot comprehend why he is calculating screen dimensions in millimeters instead of pixels, which would have more precision in this case.

    That "0.0174 rad/deg" is PI/180, so changing degrees to radians there, although with a rounding error again, it should be 0.0175 with that precision. So he is calculating sin(1.5 degrees)*4.1nm there to get the width/height of the camera view area at that distance, but for some strange reason left out the trigonometric function he is using. And apparently he also moved the (incorrect) FOV angle of 1.5 outside that sin and instead multiplies that in first, introducing yet another but this time very small error.
    (Edit: on a closer look, it seems he just put the result of the sin function there as value, which made it harder to see what he was doing)

    For some strange reason, even his value for converting nautical miles to feet is off by one, it should be 6076. Why can't he use even a single correct number in his calculations? (even though that's yet another small difference that doesn't count much)

    So, let's see if even that calculation is done correctly with all those incorrect values. I'm getting a rounded range of 11-14 feet, so I guess he rounded those to the nearest 5 ft or something. Doesn't really matter to introduce additional inaccuracies, as it's all based on incorrect numbers anyway, and those size estimates are pretty inaccurate. In reality the object is around 3 to 7 feet when the calculation is done with correct values.

    To be more precise, it's 0.107nm with his incorrect values, so his rounding again loses 7% of accuracy there.

    If he had used accurate numbers from the previous calculation, that would have been 0.15 nm.

    Great, more inaccurate numbers, but who cares, since he is using the wrong tool for the job anyway. So the result with those numbers is 126 to 168 knots, would have been 135 to 180 knots if he wouldn't have lost the accuracy above.

    So now the important question is: What did he actually just calculate? He calculated the apparent speed of the object moving across the screen. As if the plane was stationary. But it wasn't, and the object was high up. He doesn't seem to understand at all how most of that apparent speed is because of the movement of the plane. Even though he calculated earlier the object is at high altitude.

    He is using the CAS speed, while in reality he should be using the TAS speed, which is actually around 370 kt.

    If he would have done the sensible thing and calculated the track of the jet and the relative distances and velocities between that and the target, he wouldn't need to care about the land speeds, and the presumably larger difference in winds on the ground level, but just the relative differences between the altitudes of the jet and the target.

    Similarly he could have calculated pretty good estimates for the speed by using the rangefinder closing velocity values. The results from both of those methods are close to each other, so the display actually provides enough data to verify the speed estimates to certain degree with different means.

    I really cannot understand why there seems to be a common myth that he is supposedly some sort of an expert on these sorts of calculations. He seems to be pretty clueless.

    Considering his later "calculations" apparently resulted a speed of 330 kt, I would rather trust a random number generator.

    Edit: Here's his revised version:
    So still doesn't seem to understand the parallax effect and the contribution of the movement of the plane to the apparent speed, is using the wrong FOV, admits he messed up calculating the frames, which is still the wrong tool to use, he still seems to have issues with his vision if he believes the distance was 4.1 nm when the target was locked, it makes no sense to use "guesstimates" when the accuracy of the actual values from the display is already a problem, but at least there are some values available, and his results are much worse than those with all the errors he was trying to fix. Seems like some of his earlier errors helped to mitigate some of his other errors...
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
    CuCullen likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page