Pentagon UFO Study - Media Monitoring

[O'Rilly]

The film Baraka documentarytube.com/videos/baraka has some astounding footage, starting at 29 minutes, of a flock of birds at altitude leaving contrails, I presume from body heat and moisture from breath.

Part of my doubt about the Gimbal and Go Fast vids is the intercom lingo between the air crew. However, a thought came to me. If these two vids actually are from the same crew on the same flight, then perhaps these two guys are very low time, newbie aviators. Everything will be "woo hoo." Cat shot. . . woo hoo. Third wire . . . woo hoo. Radar contact . . . woo hoo. IR lock . . . woo hoo. If the audio was actually recorded with the vids, and not dubbed in, then I am inclinded to think the air crew were not well-seasoned vets. I could be wrong though. If the Gimbal and Go Fast vids were not associated with the Nimitz, then unless anyone coughs up addition collaborating information, there does not seem to be any corresponding ship-borne radar data, as was reported in the Nimitz case. But I may have missed that information. In any case, nothing looks spectacular to me.

On the other hand, WOW, Tucker Carlson changing his tune?!? It is a good thing that he was informed about the O'Hare event, because if these FLIR vids wash out, as they appear to be doing, then at least he will have that credible report, together with the Nimitz pilot reports. But as someone else has said, TTSA has evidently succeeded (for the time being anyway) in its goal of entertainment that supports a positive view of UFOs.

Somehow, I just have a baaaad feeling . . .

 

[DROBNJAK]

But I am quite baffled by your last sentence, Brother @DROBNJAK. You are quite correct that radar would not be able to lock in on a big bird, but do you not understand that the TTSA video we are discussing is not a radar image, but an Infra-Red image which is quite capable of locking in on a big bird.

On a second thought, plane would not actually use radar to lock on. That was a video from LANTRIN pod, which is run with thermal imaging camera. Basically there would be a software that would lock on an image within image simply based on contrast and patterns. So most likely it wasn't radar lock at all, but image lock.

 

[Realm]

The film Baraka documentarytube.com/videos/baraka has some astounding footage, starting at 29 minutes, of a flock of birds at altitude leaving contrails, I presume either from body heat or moisture from breath.

If you look at the WP version of the video closely in slow motion before the target is locked, there also seems to be a bit of contrail/exhausts/bird fart visible:
Perspective | The military keeps encountering UFOs. Why doesn’t the Pentagon care?

Part of my doubt about the Gimbal and Go Fast vids is the intercom lingo between the air crew. However, a thought came to me. If these two vids actually are from the same crew on the same flight, then perhaps these two guys are very low time, newbie aviators. Everything will be "woo hoo." Cat shot. . . woo hoo. Third wire . . . woo hoo. Radar contact . . . woo hoo. IR lock . . . woo hoo. If the audio was actually recorded with the vids, and not dubbed in, then I am inclinded to think the air crew were not well-seasoned vets.

That's what I'm thinking as well. I would guess they are newbies practicing to use those instruments on a practice flight, which probably doesn't have anything to do with UFOs or unknown radar targets to be investigated.

If the Gimbal and Go Fast vids were not associated with the Nimitz

There's no reason to suspect any connection. Nimitz happened in 2004 on the West Coast and those two in 2015 on the East Coast.

there does not seem to be any corresponding ship-borne radar data, as was reported in the Nimitz case.

The video doesn't seem to indicate any radar data, and neither does the TTSA info page.

But as someone else has said, TTSA has evidently succeeded (for the time being anyway) in its goal of entertainment that supports a positive view of UFOs.

Somehow, I just have a baaaad feeling . . .

I believe it was that Nimitz case (which happened and was leaked before AATIP and TTSA) that changed the tune in the media. It is still a credible and interesting case, none of this has really raised any questions about that one. These other two clips however are not what they were supposed to be, and that may result a lot of backlash in the media, and general attitudes towards the subject.

I believe the best scenario would have been if Elizondo would have just informed and confirmed to NYT that the already available Nimitz video and other information was legit, and the TTSA and the rest of this stuff would have never happened.

 

[Realm]

Well, one can see that HUD is showing range to target of 3.5 (I guess that's miles)

Nautical miles to be exact. Just like the speeds are knots, that is nautical miles per hour.

On a second thought, plane would not actually use radar to lock on. That was a video from LANTRIN pod, which is run with thermal imaging camera. Basically there would be a software that would lock on an image within image simply based on contrast and patterns. So most likely it wasn't radar lock at all, but image lock.

My understanding is that ATFLIR can also track an object that was locked by radar, but in this case that is not the case and instead image contrast based tracking is used. It's explained on the TTSA page:
2015 GO FAST FOOTAGE
So it would be somewhat similar what consumer cameras can also do.

There's no indication they saw that bird on their radar.

 

[Realm]

Lol…, it’s entirely possible & probably common for an albatross to ascend beyond 16,000 feet (3+ mi). While rarely seen on land, these amazing seabirds are known to travel over 10,000 miles without landing. They may sleep while in flight. Additionally, the longer the wingspan of these seabirds the higher altitude achieved. It is simply nonsense to suggest an albatross would fly completely over open sea @ minimal altitudes, while not taking advantage of favorable wind patterns & weather conditions in soaring higher when weather conditions are unfavorable @ lower altitudes.

Top 10 bird flight altitudes:

Andean Condor- 15,000 ft. approx. 3 mi.

White Stork- 16,000 ft. approx. 3 mi.

Bar-tailed Godwit- 20,000 ft. approx. 4 mi.

Mallard- 21,000 ft. approx. 4 mi

Bearded Vulture- 24,000 ft. approx. 4+ mi.

Alpine Chough- 26,000 ft. approx. 5+ mi.

Whooper Swan- 27,000 ft. approx. 5+ mi.

Bar-headed Goose- 29,000 ft. approx. 6- mi.

Common Crane- 33,000 ft. approx. 6+ mi.

Ruppell’s Vulture- 37,000 ft. approx. 7+ mi.

Someone at Metabunk has linked to this old Raytheon document, that specifies FOV values of "0.7°, 2.8°, 6.0°":
Wayback Machine

I believed the NAR mode FOV was 1.5°, which seems to have been the common belief at Metabunk as well, based on some simulator description that tends to pop among the first google results if you try to search that. If it is actually 0.7, and the manufacturer should know that best, it would mean the bird was only half the size we have assumed so far. (That change doesn't affect the other calculations)

This is the simulator page that specifies 1.5:
A/A Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) - VRS Support Wiki
Is that even the same system? It mentions ATFLIR only once, but otherwise it's A/A FLIR.

The ATFLIR package was developed to provide the Boeing F/A-18 combat aircraft with an austere weather, long-range targeting capability. It is housed in a 72-inch pod on the port fuselage station. Common optics and a mid-wave staring focal plane array support an infrared channel with 30x magnification and an electro-optical channel offering up to 60x magnification.

Proven in combat, Raytheon ASQ-228 gets upgraded
That might explain the discrepancy. It seems to have only half the magnification on IR. So maybe NAR is 1.5° for IR and 0.7° for optical?

Here's some F18 flight manuals:
U.S. Navy F-18 NATOPS Flight Manuals | Public Intelligence

Can't find that FOV info there, but a couple of interesting parts:

ATFLIR Limitations - Warning:

Failure to use eye protection when firing the LASER may result in severe
eye damage and possible blindness.

Don't shoot it at birds then! This UFO investigation might turn into animal rights case soon.

There's also some info how carrying ATFLIR on one side only can change jet flight characteristics, meaning it might change those turn angles that are used in my calculations, but those effects can be compensated with various means on the jet, so we don't really know if that has any effect on the situation in question. The document in question also only speaks of speeds over MACH 0.90.

Edit: That F18-EF-200 document actually has (page 372) "rate of turn - degrees per second" chart for calculating the rate of turn based on TAS. It only shows lines for every ten of degrees of bank angle, but the closest one to the values we are calculating here, that is TAS=360 and bank=10 is spot on to the equation I'm using. TAS=300, bank=10 is also spot on. Bank=20 is a bit less on that document, 1.07 vs. 1.10 on mine, but relatively close anyway, and the jet doesn't bank that much in the video. So I'm now more confident my banking calculations are about right.

That above Raytheon document specifies the ATFLIR Focal plane is "640 x 480 InSb". Similarly this document states its "640 X 480 element array":
http://navybmr.com/study material/NAVEDTRA 14030A.pdf
So much for seeing feathers...

That document also contains other potentially useful information but unfortunately doesn't seem to specify exact FOVs.

Field of View and Zoom There are three levels of optical FOV available for the operator using the ATFLIR system. They are the wide, medium, and narrow FOVs. The wide FOV is optically fixed at 1X magnification. The medium and narrow FOVs are optically fixed at 1X with a 2X magnification zoom capability. All three FOVs are implemented in the reflective telescope of the EOSU with switch in mirrors.

Does that 2X mean digital zoom then? In any case the "Go Fast" video shows they only used 1X zoom or something akin to teleconverters?

 

[DROBNJAK]

OK, so the only hope left, for us 'believers' is that no shape change is seen on that shape. That object looks quite solid and oblong.

If it was an albatross, it would look like a cross, with wings about twice as wide as the body.

Since this video is a copy of the copy of the copy, is there any access to the original full resolution image, where all original pixels can be seen in that dot?

 

[MrBeliever]

If the declassification process aims to conceal info about platforms and capabilities, sources and methods, we will never know the true resolution of the footage.

What I can tell you though is this is not an iphone camera. This thing can show you a clear picture of a jet from 40 miles away. The object is much closer. This is not a blurry dot, it's a very suspicious looking IR blackhole.

A bird is so unlikely... What feels more plausible for me is that the object is cloaking itself in some way. I'm sure it's not difficult to obfuscate your signature from an IR camera if you know it's aimed at you thanks to a powerful and obvious laser...

 

[Realm]

OK, so the only hope left, for us 'believers' is that no shape change is seen on that shape. That object looks quite solid and oblong.

Open the video from here:
https://videos.posttv.com/washpost-...153584-wn5qra_t_1520523803947_640_360_600.mp4

Put that on full screen and pause. Then drag the position slowly with the control on the bottom, frame by frame between 1 and 12 second marks, before it's locked. It is changing shape, and at several points seems to have shapes consistent with a bird with wings.

It seems that the (image contrast based) tracking loses details, possibly for some technical reason due to image processing or something, and the object becomes a roundish blob.

Since this video is a copy of the copy of the copy, is there any access to the original full resolution image, where all original pixels can be seen in that dot?

Our best chance would be to demand that from the TTSA. They claim to have it, they claim it's properly declassified/authorized for public viewing, and they are advertising that authenticity. So we should bombard them with requests to release that important evidence.

FOIA requests are another route, but that could take months or even years, if they even result anything.

Why the TTSA hasn't published the originals so far? Here are some possibilities:
- They just want everyone to see their stupid entertainment company branding on their modified and re-compressed versions, which wouldn't be visible if everyone would be looking at the originals.
- The original shows details they don't want us to see, like better bird shapes
- The original is actually a single long combined file that shows both of these events, and they don't want to reveal that
- They are planning to split such large file to further videos later. Like if those newbies were also viewing a ship or a balloon or a cloud or something.

As for the resolution, according to the above sources, the original hardware (note: actual sensor resolution, not just display) resolution seems to be only 640 x 480 (4:3 aspect ratio). However, the display on the plane seems to be square (1:1 aspect ratio), so does it use non-square pixels or what is happening there? The WP version of that video seems to be 640x360 according to the metadata (16:9 aspect ratio), yet it is displayed as a square. For some reason, at least on my laptop, 3 different video viewers show it at 320x320 resolution if I tell them to show it in original size. I'm trying to figure out what's going on and what the real resolution is.

 

[MrBeliever]

The display resolution is not the actual recording's resolution. You'll need info about how the data is actually encoded and stored to infer anything about that. But that is not going to be divulged.

And like we don't have enough info to infer the object's actual speed, we don't have enough info to know if the streaks are video compression artifacts. One thing is quite clear though, the camera cannot focus on multiple points at the same time so it's completely normal for the object to shift in size and shape when it's not being tracked - it could not possibly be in focus if the camera is tracking the background and the object is miles up in the air.

 

[Realm]

Top 10 bird flight altitudes:

Andean Condor- 15,000 ft. approx. 3 mi.

White Stork- 16,000 ft. approx. 3 mi.

Bar-tailed Godwit- 20,000 ft. approx. 4 mi.

Mallard- 21,000 ft. approx. 4 mi

Bearded Vulture- 24,000 ft. approx. 4+ mi.

Alpine Chough- 26,000 ft. approx. 5+ mi.

Whooper Swan- 27,000 ft. approx. 5+ mi.

Bar-headed Goose- 29,000 ft. approx. 6- mi.

Common Crane- 33,000 ft. approx. 6+ mi.

Ruppell’s Vulture- 37,000 ft. approx. 7+ mi.

Here's a couple of lists of birds of Florida:
List of birds of Florida - Wikipedia
Birds of the Keys

Bird identification tool:
WhatBird Wizard | identify birds | bird watching | bird guide | species | north america

The challenge is to find one that:
- Can be found near Florida, preferably common there.
- Flies at 4km/13200 feet.
- Is large, but with the uncertainty on the FOV and video quality, it's hard to say how large exactly. Somewhere in the range of 1-3 meters of wingspan I would say.
- Flies over ocean, but we don't know how far from the coast it was. So not necessarily a seabird, and might be migrating.
- Speed was somewhere close to 60km/h=38mph, with lots of uncertainty due to winds, but otherwise it's slow enough so that it hardly helps to identify the species.
- Could look like these (with uncertainty due to artifacts):

 

[withoutlimits09]

Lol…, it’s entirely possible & probably common for an albatross to ascend beyond 16,000 feet (3+ mi). While rarely seen on land, these amazing seabirds are known to travel over 10,000 miles without landing. They may sleep while in flight. Additionally, the longer the wingspan of these seabirds the higher altitude achieved. It is simply nonsense to suggest an albatross would fly completely over open sea @ minimal altitudes, while not taking advantage of favorable wind patterns & weather conditions in soaring higher when weather conditions are unfavorable @ lower altitudes.

Top 10 bird flight altitudes:

Andean Condor- 15,000 ft. approx. 3 mi.

White Stork- 16,000 ft. approx. 3 mi.

Bar-tailed Godwit- 20,000 ft. approx. 4 mi.

Mallard- 21,000 ft. approx. 4 mi

Bearded Vulture- 24,000 ft. approx. 4+ mi.

Alpine Chough- 26,000 ft. approx. 5+ mi.

Whooper Swan- 27,000 ft. approx. 5+ mi.

Bar-headed Goose- 29,000 ft. approx. 6- mi.

Common Crane- 33,000 ft. approx. 6+ mi.

Ruppell’s Vulture- 37,000 ft. approx. 7+ mi.

you missed the part in the video where they showed the flight characteristics of these birds...it is a looping wave pattern that allows them to fly efficiency. The object in the video is going in a straight line. That is inconsistent with how these birds travel.

 

[withoutlimits09]

The film Baraka documentarytube.com/videos/baraka has some astounding footage, starting at 29 minutes, of a flock of birds at altitude leaving contrails, I presume from body heat and moisture from breath.

Part of my doubt about the Gimbal and Go Fast vids is the intercom lingo between the air crew. However, a thought came to me. If these two vids actually are from the same crew on the same flight, then perhaps these two guys are very low time, newbie aviators. Everything will be "woo hoo." Cat shot. . . woo hoo. Third wire . . . woo hoo. Radar contact . . . woo hoo. IR lock . . . woo hoo. If the audio was actually recorded with the vids, and not dubbed in, then I am inclinded to think the air crew were not well-seasoned vets. I could be wrong though. If the Gimbal and Go Fast vids were not associated with the Nimitz, then unless anyone coughs up addition collaborating information, there does not seem to be any corresponding ship-borne radar data, as was reported in the Nimitz case. But I may have missed that information. In any case, nothing looks spectacular to me.

On the other hand, WOW, Tucker Carlson changing his tune?!? It is a good thing that he was informed about the O'Hare event, because if these FLIR vids wash out, as they appear to be doing, then at least he will have that credible report, together with the Nimitz pilot reports. But as someone else has said, TTSA has evidently succeeded (for the time being anyway) in its goal of entertainment that supports a positive view of UFOs.

Somehow, I just have a baaaad feeling . . .

a "flock of birds" Most birds fly together, the fact there isn't another bird in sight in a "Albert" video is very telling to me.

 

[SRL+]

you missed the part in the video where they showed the flight characteristics of these birds...it is a looping wave pattern that allows them to fly efficiency. The object in the video is going in a straight line. That is inconsistent with how these birds travel.

In reading Sheaffer’s (Ufology's arch enemy/Satan) most recent findings, and realizing my mistake, I am now somewhat convinced the object in question was a vulture slowly circling DeLonge, Elizondo, and the TTSA.

Bad UFOs: Skepticism, UFOs, and The Universe: "To The Stars" Releases Another Video, And Things Get Curiouser & Curiouser

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

Now here’s a fine MSM offering from The Hill.

Only thing Defense’s UFO probe proves is power of political favors

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

In reading Sheaffer’s (Ufology's arch enemy/Satan) most recent findings, and realizing my mistake, I am now somewhat convinced the object in question was a vulture slowly circling DeLonge, Elizondo, and the TTSA.

Bad UFOs: Skepticism, UFOs, and The Universe: "To The Stars" Releases Another Video, And Things Get Curiouser & Curiouser

Robert Scheaffer and John Greenwald both got the name of the program wrong. It's not the "Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program," it's "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program." That's probably why the DoD responded to Greenwald's FOIA requests with a "no records" determination - they're sticklers about getting program names right (and of course they jump at any excuse to evade compliance with FOIA requests).

Or it's all a giant and elaborate, pointless, and totally illogical conspiracy, like the pathologically cynical tin foil hat crowd wants it to be. Watching the ufology community eat itself over all of this reminds me of The Walking Dead. We finally learn about a 10+ year Pentagon program that concluded that UFOs are real and not human technology, and it's the people who have been writing books about this stuff and shouting it from the rooftops for decades who are trying to make it all into some giant bizarre hoax to convince the public that they were right all along. You couldn't make this stuff up.

 

[Realm]

I made another effort on finding the FOV for the ATFLIR for better estimates of the target size, and also confirmations on the sensor resolution. Here's what I found:

TL;DR version: the NAR mode most likely has 0.7° FOV, meaning the bird is only half the size of most estimates.

Some history:

Fred started his career with Hughes Aircraft Company in 1982 with the Electro-Optical Systems group in El Segundo, CA. After establishing the Hughes Thermal Imaging Evaluation Facility, he shifted his focus towards the development of a newly-emerging class of high-performance IR imaging sensors based on staring focal plane arrays. In 1993, Fred's team demonstrated the world's first InSb 480 x 640 format (20 um pitch) MW Imaging sensor. This achievement led to a series of program awards for U.S Navy submarine periscopes and Navy/Marine aircraft sensors. including the AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR for F/A-18 Hornet and the AN/AAQ-27A for the V-22 Osprey.

SBIR New Product and New Director of Engineering Announcement

Competitor features, more pixels on sensor, but still just 1 megapixel:

The fourth generation version of LITENING, built by Northrop Grumman, features the 1024 x 1024 pixels FLIR sensor for improved target detection and recognition ranges under day/night conditions; new sensors for improved target identification; and other advanced target recognition and identification features. Other product improvements include a new 1k charge-coupled device sensor, which provides improved target detection and recognition ranges under daylight conditions.

http://www.theatlas.org/index.php/about-atlas-3/honoring-dr-john-warfield-5?download=69

ATFLIR specs (it also lists 4 other products with FPA 640x512 and one with 320x240):

name: Raytheon AN/ASQ-228 advanced sight FLIR（ATFLIR）
detector: InSb FPA 640×480 (centerline space 25μm)
waveband: 3.7～5.0μm
field of view: Wide: 6.0°; middle: 2.8°; narrow: 0.7°

Application status and development trend of infrared imaging system

ATFLIR specs again:

Raytheon AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR, recently named Terminator
Dimensions: L: 183 cm/72 in D: 33 cm/13 in W: 191 kg/ 420 lb
Capabilities: 640 480 FPA FLIR operating in MWIR: WFOV 6 6; MFOV 2.8 2.8; NFOV 0.7 0.7
Carrier aircraft: F/A-18A þ , C/D,E/F Replacement for AN/AAS38 Nite-Hawk

http://www.helitavia.com/books/Mil Av Sys/Wiley - Military Avionics Systems.pdf

There's plenty of general info about IR sensors there, IR tracking and so on, such as:

The FPA provides an image on to a focal plane that coincides with the sensing array, most usually a two-dimensional array whose dimensions scale easily to a standard rectangular display format: NTSC, PAL and, more recently, VGA and XVGA and above, greatly simplifying the optics. Although the figure depicts the focal plane array with a vertical axis, in tactical systems the array face is usually facing directly towards the target. In most cases the forward looking IR (FLIR) sensor is looking forwards, the term being relative as it is usually mounted upon a gimballed assembly that has extreme angular agility and slew rates in order to be able to track targets while the platform is manoeuvring. As will be seen later in the chapter, several EO sensor systems are commonly physically integrated into the co-boresighted sensor set to aid sensor fusion and allow target data to be readily handed off from one sensor type to another. In an array the entire surface is not given over to IR energy sensing. There is a certain overhead involved with interconnecting the array which prevents this from being the case. In a practical array the overhead is represented by a term called the fill factor which describes the useful portion of the array as a percentage. On modern state-of-the-art arrays, the fill factor is usually around 90 %. The array is effectively read in a sequence of frames in the same way as any other real-time imaging device. Therefore, the time between successive read-outs of the array image is the time available for the array to ‘capture’ the image, and this is referred to as the integration time and permits successive images of the target to be generated. The key element in the performance of any IR imaging device lies in the performance of detectors and the read-out of the imaged data in a timely fashion.
...
The typical desired capabilities of a modern sensor are summarised below:
Pixel pitch: ~20–40 μm
Frame rate: 50 Hz (PAL); 60 Hz (NTSC) with a desire to go to 100 Hz and above
Maximum integration Time: 99% of frame time
Data rate: 10 MHz upwards
Array size: 640 x 480 (VGA resolution), heading towards 1000 x 1000 (1 Mpixels) or above in next generations

Articles about Raytheon products and IR sensors in general. No ATFLIR specs but the most interesting part is about another product, AN/AAS-52, giving further indication that the FOV can be different for IR and TV modes:

Fields of View, Degrees
Wide: 33 X 44, Medium-wide: 15 X 20, Medium: 5.7 X 7.6
Narrow: 1.2 X 1.6 (IR&TV)
Ultra-narrow: 0.6 X 0.8 (IR)
Ultra-narrow: 0.22 X 0.29 (TV)

RAYTHEON BRINGS EO TECHNOLOGY To Defend Our Nation - engineering

Some general info how IR tech works:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/51/1/012001/pdf

So, did those help? At least there's more than enough confirmation the sensor resolution is 640x480 (VGA), and the pixel pitch is probably that 25μm (so a lot bigger pixels than what high res full frame DSLRs for example have, meaning the FLIR is able to gather more light per pixel).

But what about the FOV? There were two additional documents stating the narrow FOV is 0.7°, just like that Raytheon marketing material. That 1.5° seems to be based just on the info given in that flight sim page, which I would regard less reliable.

But we need to consider the possibilities that 0.7° meant FOV with 2x (digital?) zoom, or that it's only available on TV/electro-optical mode. That digital zoom explanation doesn't seem to fit based on that one document I quoted above:

The wide FOV is optically fixed at 1X magnification. The medium and narrow FOVs are optically fixed at 1X with a 2X magnification zoom capability.

If 2 out of 3 modes provide 2X zoom, why would they give only one of them with the zoom and the other without? That sim page also claimed all of those modes would have 2x zoom. I don't think it can be trusted.

But even more significantly, consider what these options mean if the middle has 2X zoom capability:

field of view: Wide: 6.0°; middle: 2.8°; narrow: 0.7°

2x middle is 1.4! What use would that have, if the narrow was 1.5? Similarly, it's no surprise wide doesn't have 2x zoom, as it would be just the same as the middle mode. 1.5° narrow just doesn't seem to make any sense.

But then there's still the possibility that those above modes work so only for the electro-optical channel, not for IR, as I also quoted earlier above:

The ATFLIR package was developed to provide the Boeing F/A-18 combat aircraft with an austere weather, long-range targeting capability. It is housed in a 72-inch pod on the port fuselage station. Common optics and a mid-wave staring focal plane array support an infrared channel with 30x magnification and an electro-optical channel offering up to 60x magnification.

Another version

Rainey noted that with the ATFLIR pods, pilots could safely see crisp, clear subjects from nearly 4 miles up and 30 miles away. An infrared targeting system his planes used magnified an image in the night by 30 times. In daylight a television camera can magnify it by 60 times. These capabilities are 3-5x better than previous FLIR systems

Pilots in Theater Clamoring for ATFLIR Pods

I remember reading the optical path was supposedly the same for both, and those documents indicated the modes work by moving mirrors, so why would it be different for IR? It would fit if the IR couldn't use the narrow mode but only middle with 2x zoom, or that it couldn't use digital zoom on the narrow mode, but both the Nimitz and Gimbal videos use IR with NAR and 2x zoom. And what are those magnification figures relative to?

Other sources state "ATFLIR's magnification is 30X versus previous FLIR capabilities at 4x", previous generation being AN/AAS-38 "Nitehawk" with 3º x 3º and 12º x 12º modes, fitting to that 4x difference. But where does that 30x (let alone that 60x) come from?

AN/AAQ-14 LANTIRN PODs in F-16s had 21ºx28º and 4ºx4º FOVs, and that was also replaced by the ATFLIR. So if they compared a FOV of 21º to 0.7º, that's exactly 30x difference, and with the 2x zoom it would become 60x.

Edit: I may have found where that 30x could come from. From that Raytheon marketing doc:

Built-in navigation FLIR (optional)

From that book:

A relatively wide FOV for navigation and target acquisition (~20º x 20º)

So maybe the ATFLIR has a 21x21 optional navigation FLIR, and that 30x is the ratio between that and the narrowest optical FOV of 0.7ºx0.7º.

Then there's the question of why didn't those pilots try that 2x zoom on the "Go Fast" video to see more detail, even though they used that in the same mode on "Gimbal"? Did some restriction prevent them from using it while contrast tracking or looking downwards or something, or they just didn't bother to try to actually see what that blob was?

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

In reading Sheaffer’s (Ufology's arch enemy/Satan) most recent findings, and realizing my mistake, I am now somewhat convinced the object in question was a vulture slowly circling DeLonge, Elizondo, and the TTSA.

Bad UFOs: Skepticism, UFOs, and The Universe: "To The Stars" Releases Another Video, And Things Get Curiouser & Curiouser

Axolotl, my man @S.R.L. ! Recently I’ve been monitoring the Official TTSA Facebook group page and since the release of the 3rd video, there has been “trouble in paradise” over there. Many of the once “to-the-starry eyed” worshippers and devotees are now expressing their disappointment and some are getting angry at the baffling and underwhelming 3rd video. So much so that a group Administrator came on to scold them for their straying from the fold, and shaming them for daring to doubt the greatness of the supreme tribal elders whose wisdom cannot be questioned.

So there’s “blood in the water” and, shameless shark that I am, I’ve been itching to find a way to strike and your linking to Bob Sheaffer’s latest just gave me my pretext, so I copy what I just posted over there as giddy agent provocateur.

Is this any way to start a revolution? You bet it is!

Log into Facebook | Facebook

Veteran UFOlogist Robert Sheaffer raises a number of issues and asks some important questions of TTSA about the release of this 3rd video, in which the object moves entirely according to our known laws of physics, unlike the Nimitz video which showed really anomalous movement.

TTSA had built up a strong expectation that this 3rd video would show even more spectacular violations of our known laws of physics, and yet the arguments about the object among skeptics is whether it is a big bird, a drone or a weather balloon. Nothing really out of the ordinary.

The credibility of TTSA is really taking a major hit with the release of this video which shows them to be at least tone deaf to the public, if not outright incompetent in the way these videos are released without explanation, without context, but with a lot of “plausible deniability” because. “There’sso Much great stuff we’d like to tell you and show you but we can’t right now.”

I’m sorry, but sincerity and the academic and intelligence credentials of the TTSA “Dream team” just don’t cut it anymore.

Why are we supposed to put blind trust in them when they put no trust in us? This is a two-way street — at least that’s what a true Community of Interest should be. Instead, we just get the one way “revelations from on high” like from a cult guru and his inner circle.

Is this what TTSA is really all about? As Robert Sheaffer writes evoking Alice in Wonderland: “Things get curiouser and curiouser.”

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

Robert Scheaffer and John Greenwald both got the name of the program wrong. It's not the "Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program," it's "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program." That's probably why the DoD responded to Greenwald's FOIA requests with a "no records" determination - they're sticklers about getting program names right (and of course they jump at any excuse to evade compliance with FOIA requests).

Or it's all a giant and elaborate, pointless, and totally illogical conspiracy, like the pathologically cynical tin foil hat crowd wants it to be. Watching the ufology community eat itself over all of this reminds me of The Walking Dead. We finally learn about a 10+ year Pentagon program that concluded that UFOs are real and not human technology, and it's the people who have been writing books about this stuff and shouting it from the rooftops for decades who are trying to make it all into some giant bizarre hoax to convince the public that they were right all along. You couldn't make this stuff up.

Methinks that Brother Morrison doth protest too much!

(Or is it more like: “whistling past the graveyard?”)

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Methinks that Brother Morrison doth protest too much!

(Or is it more like: “whistling past the graveyard?”)

O brother. You're part of the problem Tom, not part of the solution. Over at MetaBunk you go around kissing behinds, but here your time is almost exclusively devoted to making a mockery of UFO cases and ufology in general (while simultaneously posting totally woo stuff like "by my forensic anagrammatical analysis of [insert name here], blah blah blah." What are you - a wild-eyed new ager who ascribes to anagrams and numerology and Tarot cards "to divine the esoteric truths behind reality," or a die-hard disbeliever who longs to be respected by the debunker community?

Honestly I doubt that you even know the answer to that question yourself. But the perverse glee that you take in disrupting rational debate with weirdly blithering nonsense and misdirection, makes you an adversary, not an advocate, of informed and meaningful discussion.

The facts are clear and simple:

1.) If Luis Elizondo hadn't come forward we'd probably never have even known about the Pentagon's AATIP, and their stunning conclusions about the reality and the non-human origin of these kinds of devices operating in our airspace.

2.) If the TTSA hadn't released the Nimitz video and convinced Cmdrs. Fravor and Slaight to come forward, we would never have gotten their crystal clear and highly compelling testimony about those incidents - which, by the way, is now probably one of the most historic cases in recent UFO history thanks to their impeccable credentials and these unprecedented video clips. When has the DoD ever released video from our best fighter jets of an intercept attempt of a UFO? Probably never - I can't recall this ever happening before.

Sure, this third video (like the other two, honestly) -without the kind of additional context that we got with the Nimitz case- is extremely ambiguous if not outright worthless as evidence of UFO activity. But that's on the DoD, not TTSA. The DoD has chosen to release only tiny blurry brief clips with no real intelligence value. We've just learned that the Gimbal and "Go Fast" video clips are only two tiny segments from a >17-minute mission. Where's the rest? TTSA doesn't have it - the DoD has it. But they're not sharing >95% of that video footage.

So if you actually cared >at all< about this subject (and if you don't, then why are you here in the first place?), you'd be peeved at the DoD for holding so much data back...rather than looking for excuses to take pot shots at the people fighting to get more data released from our government to share with us, free of charge.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Crikes.

 

[Realm]

It is starting to look probable we are actually seeing a bird with a wingspan closer to a meter than two. Which significantly increases the number of possible species. Mostly due to the FOV most likely being that 0.7°, and also some further analysis of the video. I'll get back to this in more detail tomorrow or so.

It's quite complicated to try to figure out those dimensions. According to my calculations, the bird was flying 4 degrees towards left from the initial plane position at 233s mark. If we consider the case that it had wings extended while flying level towards that direction, they would look only about half their length when viewed from the camera vertical angle from the plane, and due to the change of angle, they would look about the same length even as the jet gets closer. And on the display the direction from wingtip to wingtip should be rotated 40-65 degrees clockwise from the level x-axis, so it should look like it's wings are around the top-left to bottom-right direction.

Then again, it's a tiny blob, the actual orientation could be different due to winds, it doesn't stay quite level and wings extended all the time, there are artifacts due to the movement and so on. But looking at closeups of that blob while it's tracked, especially when in the mode where it looks black, it does seem to be rotated somewhat towards that angle, but not quite as much.

Considering all that, and trying to measure the blob from the screenshots, taking into account how the video compression likely softens the edges, I guess a wingspan closer to 2 meters might still be a better guess, unless it's oriented differently, or flaps so that the camera registers the maximum dimensions and so on...