Pentagon UFO Study - Media Monitoring

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

Beware the Ides of March

Two aviators die after Oceana-based fighter jet crashes near Key West

 

[withoutlimits09]

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

This is why 95% of you all suck. Far too cynical and bitchy. For all too long everyone cried that they were tired of UFO being represented by "contactees" with nothing more than "wild stories." They demanded people who were not obsessed with flying saucers, and had access to government to seriously look at the phenomena in an attempt to better explain it. That's where this field was for most of the 90s and 2000s. Greer had a messiah complex, Mussian was fraud from Mexico, John Lear was crazy...all very true points. However, now we have a handful of credible people (in my objective estimation) like Chris Mellon and Elizondo, trying to bring attention to this and find channels to release what bit of information was gathered in the AATI program, yet everyone shits all over them.

You just can't win. I am not a huge fan of the TTSA, or Delonge, but right now he is the only game in town. It is clear, and has been clear for decades, that the government does not care about this topic. As John Alexander said, these events are too rare and too strange to be studied properly, so they aren't. Now the private sector is taking a crack at it, and the same stupid and overplayed memes are being regurgitated in response. "Oh that guy is a spook, he works for the government..." Really? How else would he get close to classified programs? Bagging groceries at Walmart (or writing UFO books), ...or "Oh, they just want to profit, and get rich..." As if anyone in the history of this field has ever made money from UFOs (not to mention Delonge is quite wealthy).

Frankly, I don't think the government cares enough to spend decades "dis-informing" a handful of interested people on the internet. There are far more pressing issues and people interested in UFOs are probably like 100000th down the list of groups the government wants to address. Get over yourselves. Let the data come out, let people examine it, and leave it at that, stop with the drama about "disinfo" and "spooks" and "profit," none are as prevalent as you all would love to think.

 

[SRL+]

This is why 95% of you all suck. Far too cynical and bitchy. For all too long everyone cried that they were tired of UFO being represented by "contactees" with nothing more than "wild stories." They demanded people who were not obsessed with flying saucers, and had access to government to seriously look at the phenomena in an attempt to better explain it. That's where this field was for most of the 90s and 2000s. Greer had a messiah complex, Mussian was fraud from Mexico, John Lear was crazy...all very true points. However, now we have a handful of credible people (in my objective estimation) like Chris Mellon and Elizondo, trying to bring attention to this and find channels to release what bit of information was gathered in the AATI program, yet everyone shits all over them.

You just can't win. I am not a huge fan of the TTSA, or Delonge, but right now he is the only game in town. It is clear, and has been clear for decades, that the government does not care about this topic. As John Alexander said, these events are too rare and too strange to be studied properly, so they aren't. Now the private sector is taking a crack at it, and the same stupid and overplayed memes are being regurgitated in response. "Oh that guy is a spook, he works for the government..." Really? How else would he get close to classified programs? Bagging groceries at Walmart (or writing UFO books), ...or "Oh, they just want to profit, and get rich..." As if anyone in the history of this field has ever made money from UFOs (not to mention Delonge is quite wealthy).

Frankly, I don't think the government cares enough to spend decades "dis-informing" a handful of interested people on the internet. There are far more pressing issues and people interested in UFOs are probably like 100000th down the list of groups the government wants to address. Get over yourselves. Let the data come out, let people examine it, and leave it at that, stop with the drama about "disinfo" and "spooks" and "profit," none are as prevalent as you all would love to think.

Initially, did everyone “crap” all over Jaime Maussan and that dream team? Not on your life, as the faithful flocked down to Mexico for the beWitness event. It was not until a small group of individuals, from the skeptical to the open-minded, decided to decipher the placard in revealing the mummified child.

Understandably, you feel as though a few of the unclean, unruly, and irreverent are spoiling your disclosure fantasy, however, I strongly suggest this isn’t the case. It’s just that a few of us around here actually want to know what your otherworldly UFOs truly are, and the individuals making these fantastic claims.

Seemingly pathetic, there are other mysteries to be solved without the assistance of the TTSA Theatrical Troupe.

 

[withoutlimits09]

Initially, did everyone “crap” all over Jaime Maussan and that dream team? Not on your life, as the faithful flocked down to Mexico for the beWitness event. It was not until a small group of individuals, from the skeptical to the open-minded, decided to decipher the placard in revealing the mummified child.

Understandably, you feel as though a few of the unclean, unruly, and irreverent are spoiling your disclosure fantasy, however, I strongly suggest this isn’t the case. It’s just that a few of us around here actually want to know what your otherworldly UFOs truly are, and the individuals making these fantastic claims.

Seemingly pathetic, there are other mysteries to be solved without the assistance of the TTSA Theatrical Troupe.

Actually , bragging about taking on Jamie Maussan and a photograph most everyone from day one said looked like a mummy is pathetic. What's more laughable than Maussan are the people who think they are great intellects for "debunking" him. A child could see all of his evidence was pathetic. Yet we have a fraternity of "researchers" on this site that sit in an echo chamber, "reframing the debate," and basking over debunking a moron, as though that is some notable accomplishment (for them it is probably the highlight of their life). I even think a favorite fan of the Paracast authored a published chapter in a book, highlighting the debunking of the Roswell slides. What a joke, a total waste of a good paper...

 

[SRL+]

Actually , bragging about taking on Jamie Maussan and a photograph most everyone from day one said looked like a mummy is pathetic. What's more laughable than Maussan are the people who think they are great intellects for "debunking" him. A child could see all of his evidence was pathetic. Yet we have a fraternity of "researchers" on this site that sit in an echo chamber, "reframing the debate," and basking over debunking a moron, as though that is some notable accomplishment (for them it is probably the highlight of their life). I even think a favorite fan of the Paracast authored a published chapter in a book, highlighting the debunking of the Roswell slides. What a joke, a total waste of a good paper...

Lol.., you’d think so, right?... wrong. Just look @ the Roswell Slide threads, and the amount of individuals who thought that particular form of disclosure was the real deal. Pages, and pages, on, and on it went.

Where were you?

 

[Randall]

This is why 95% of you all suck. Far too cynical and bitchy. For all too long everyone cried that they were tired of UFO being represented by "contactees" with nothing more than "wild stories." They demanded people who were not obsessed with flying saucers, and had access to government to seriously look at the phenomena in an attempt to better explain it. That's where this field was for most of the 90s and 2000s. Greer had a messiah complex, Mussian was fraud from Mexico, John Lear was crazy...all very true points. However, now we have a handful of credible people (in my objective estimation) like Chris Mellon and Elizondo, trying to bring attention to this and find channels to release what bit of information was gathered in the AATI program, yet everyone shits all over them.

You just can't win. I am not a huge fan of the TTSA, or Delonge, but right now he is the only game in town. It is clear, and has been clear for decades, that the government does not care about this topic. As John Alexander said, these events are too rare and too strange to be studied properly, so they aren't. Now the private sector is taking a crack at it, and the same stupid and overplayed memes are being regurgitated in response. "Oh that guy is a spook, he works for the government..." Really? How else would he get close to classified programs? Bagging groceries at Walmart (or writing UFO books), ...or "Oh, they just want to profit, and get rich..." As if anyone in the history of this field has ever made money from UFOs (not to mention Delonge is quite wealthy).

Frankly, I don't think the government cares enough to spend decades "dis-informing" a handful of interested people on the internet. There are far more pressing issues and people interested in UFOs are probably like 100000th down the list of groups the government wants to address. Get over yourselves. Let the data come out, let people examine it, and leave it at that, stop with the drama about "disinfo" and "spooks" and "profit," none are as prevalent as you all would love to think.

Fabulous post!

 

[DROBNJAK]

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?

;-)))

Brother @Thomas R Morrison, you got it all wrong. Brother Hollywood is here to recruit followers for his Alien cult. After that they are going to conquer the world and join intergalactic federation.

 

[MrBeliever]

Still monitoring Metabunk.

So they have a new guy offering to create a 3D simulation. I think he doesn't know the difference between miles and nautical miles, or horizontal/vertical FOV and why the aspect ratio matters... Never mind the fact that we don't know the focal distance of the lens and no one is doing any kind of perspective correction. Also, we supposedly know that a 4:3 image is being fitted onto a square without applying a non-uniform scale, meaning we have to guess how the source optical data was first fitted to a 4:3 aspect ratio at encoding time, and then guess how that was fitted to a square afterwards.

Meanwhile, Mick is determined to interpret changes in the plane's wing angle as the plane steering, ignoring the fact that it's the position of the flaps that causes the plane to turn, not the wing angle. But assuming the plane's wing angle causes immediate steering with no change in altitude, like in the 1987 arcade video game Afterburner, we're able to make the jet follow a radius that makes the object's velocity fit the bird/balloon narrative, and we can go to sleep at night knowing our current world view is safe for a little while longer...

 

[Realm]

Still monitoring Metabunk.

I also took a look at what they are doing, and seems like they should have followed this thread, as they are still trying to figure out information that is already available here. But what I have seen, it seems to be the kind of community that only listens to each other.

Meanwhile, Mick is determined to interpret changes in the plane's wing angle as the plane steering, ignoring the fact that it's the position of the flaps that causes the plane to turn, not the wing angle.

Once again you are wrong. Banking angle causes the plane to turn, which can be calculated with an equation I have linked to in this thread before and used in my calculations, and I have also verified it is in good accord with a chart given in NATOPS F18 manual.

Note also that even if the plane didn't turn at all, the resulting speed would still be within bird territory.

Also remember that my calculations on the object speeds are not dependent in any way of those camera capabilities and how it's displayed, just on the instrument data. Only the estimates of the object size depend on information about the camera, and based on the best available data, it seems to be the size of a large bird. A large bird is my first choice based on all the available data, a balloon would be my second choice. There's nothing extraordinary in that slow and small target that is travelling more or less in straight line.

It is simply a fact that the claims by TTSA of a low flying fast object is incorrect, so why should anyone believe their ideas of that being something alien would be correct, when those are obviously based on incorrect information?

 

[DROBNJAK]

It is simply a fact that the claims by TTSA of a low flying fast object is incorrect, so why should anyone believe their ideas of that being something alien would be correct, when those are obviously based on incorrect information?

Hmmmmm, very good work @Realm

I think you should make a YouTube video about your investigation to let more people know.

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

Still monitoring Metabunk.

So they have a new guy offering to create a 3D simulation. I think he doesn't know the difference between miles and nautical miles, or horizontal/vertical FOV and why the aspect ratio matters... Never mind the fact that we don't know the focal distance of the lens and no one is doing any kind of perspective correction. Also, we supposedly know that a 4:3 image is being fitted onto a square without applying a non-uniform scale, meaning we have to guess how the source optical data was first fitted to a 4:3 aspect ratio at encoding time, and then guess how that was fitted to a square afterwards.

Meanwhile, Mick is determined to interpret changes in the plane's wing angle as the plane steering, ignoring the fact that it's the position of the flaps that causes the plane to turn, not the wing angle. But assuming the plane's wing angle causes immediate steering with no change in altitude, like in the 1987 arcade video game Afterburner, we're able to make the jet follow a radius that makes the object's velocity fit the bird/balloon narrative, and we can go to sleep at night knowing our current world view is safe for a little while longer...

Wow, @MrBeliever ! I marvel at your exquisite command and versatile application of the logical fallacy of “incomplete evidence,” more commonly known as “cherry-picking.” — all of it a lasting tribute to the sturdiness and hermetically sealed mental fortress you have constructed for yourself about UFOlogy. May I name it “Fort Confirmation Bias?”

I’m so glad that Brother @Realm is here to provide you with many opportunities to “de-compartmentalize,” should you so wish to do so.

 

[MrBeliever]

Once again you are wrong. Banking angle causes the plane to turn, which can be calculated with an equation I have linked to in this thread before and used in my calculations, and I have also verified it is in good accord with a chart given in NATOPS F18 manual.

You know that's ridiculous, though, right? Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but you don't know the wind direction nor the position of the flaps. You found some rate of turn chart online that fits a specific narrative. For all you know, the plane is actually turning right.

We do agree that there's nothing especially remarkable about the object in the video, however.

The conundrum we're faced with is that slow disclosure looks exactly like slowly escalating marketing stunts. Personally, I think we have more chances of finding out the truth if TTSA lies through its teeth and manages to convince the public, forcing the government's hand.

We know for a fact Elizondo is not allowed to share any info - no one who was part of AATIP can step in and correct the mistakes made by whoever analyzed the video... The video was carefully chosen to ensure no one would be able to make a conclusive analysis of the speeds.

And I'm not saying the analysis is a waste of time - just that given the massive error margin, coming up with a single result and not a wide range is plain unscientific and misleading. Meanwhile, people all around the internet are quoting this BS as fact...

 

[Realm]

You know that's ridiculous, though, right?

What is actually ridiculous are your desperate attempts trying to deny the additional knowledge we have gathered, like Tom just said:

I marvel at your exquisite command and versatile application of the logical fallacy of “incomplete evidence,” more commonly known as “cherry-picking.”

What we are calculating is how everything functions based on the data we actually have. Sure, there are unknown factors that could change the overall result, but those can change it to one direction or the another, or not at all. And as I have mentioned for several of your attempts to introduce some additional margins of errors, the results have still stayed within the bird territory. Having those calculations enable me to actually check those effects.

When I for example calculate that the banking causes the plane to turn 11.5 degrees in total, I know that if some additional factor causes +-5 degrees, that's +-5 from 11.5, not 0.

As for your ideas of flaps being used for turning, that seems to be mostly limited to hard turns in combat maneuvers:

Like gliders, some fighters such as the Nakajima Ki-43 also use special flaps to improve maneuverability during air combat, allowing the fighter to create more lift at a given speed, allowing for much tighter turns.[3] The flaps used for this must be designed specifically to handle the greater stresses and most flaps have a maximum speed at which they can be deployed.

Flap (aeronautics) - Wikipedia

That is also echoed by someone claiming to be a fighter pilot:

However since “fighter” is mentioned, there is another time when a fighter might use its flaps. This might be done during air combat maneuvering (ACM), also called basic fighter maneuvering (BFM).

https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-fighter-jet-use-its-flaps

So basically there's no reason to assume flaps were used in that video. It's unclear if F18 even has those (for maneuvering, that is).

As for the winds, as I have already stated before, what matters is the relative difference between the altitudes of 4 and 7 kilometers. If there's no big difference, since both the jet and the target were flying roughly to the same direction, those winds more likely had similar effect on them, keeping the relative effects the same. In any case, once again, the calculations show the baseline from which to estimate how much +- something could matter. Lacking such information about any additional effects, the best estimate is that baseline.

 

[Getoffthisplanet]

Still monitoring Metabunk.

So they have a new guy offering to create a 3D simulation. I think he doesn't know the difference between miles and nautical miles, or horizontal/vertical FOV and why the aspect ratio matters... Never mind the fact that we don't know the focal distance of the lens and no one is doing any kind of perspective correction. Also, we supposedly know that a 4:3 image is being fitted onto a square without applying a non-uniform scale, meaning we have to guess how the source optical data was first fitted to a 4:3 aspect ratio at encoding time, and then guess how that was fitted to a square afterwards.

Hi there. Sure, I know the difference between nautical miles and statute miles, horizontal and vertical FOV's and why aspect ratio matters.

And you are correct, there are a bunch of unknowns and a bunch of assumptions being made.

But, armed with the limited available information and despite the margins of error, I think I can still get a reasonable and logical estimate of things.

I've proved to myself: the thing is small.

Now figuring out how to recreate the speed/movement of the jet, the speed/movement of the object and the movement of the camera, all in 3D, is probably a bit beyond my abilities. It's an intellectual challenge and learning experience to be sure.

 

[Realm]

Hi there. Sure, I know the difference between nautical miles and statute miles, horizontal and vertical FOV's and why aspect ratio matters.

And you are correct, there are a bunch of unknowns and a bunch of assumptions being made.

But, armed with the limited available information and despite the margins of error, I think I can still get a reasonable and logical estimate of things.

I've proved to myself: the thing is small.

Now figuring out how to recreate the speed/movement of the jet, the speed/movement of the object and the movement of the camera, all in 3D, is probably a bit beyond my abilities. It's an intellectual challenge and learning experience to be sure.

I see you came here from Metabunk, welcome!

I have a rather detailed spreadsheet calculation, that I haven't had time to properly check, and it would be interesting to compare the results to other efforts like yours. A pic of my results is on page 3 of this thread, and also copied to Metabunk by Tom.

What was your estimate of the size, and what FOV was that based on? I'm now almost certain the correct FOV is 0.7º, not 1.5º as most seem to believe at Metabunk.

When I have time, I will post here some additional details how I believe the ATFLIR works. It might provide some additional magnification for visible wavelengths, that could explain that somewhat conflicting info of 30x vs. 60x magnification. But it's very likely the NAR FOV is 0.7º for IR images.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Wow, @MrBeliever ! I marvel at your exquisite command and versatile application of the logical fallacy of “incomplete evidence,” more commonly known as “cherry-picking.” — all of it a lasting tribute to the sturdiness and hermetically sealed mental fortress you have constructed for yourself about UFOlogy. May I name it “Fort Confirmation Bias?”

I’m so glad that Brother @Realm is here to provide you with many opportunities to “de-compartmentalize,” should you so wish to do so.

While I agree with you that generally "cherry picking" is a big problem in reconstructing events, we are lucky here. Certain sciences offer immutable solutions. Here, @Realm had all the data needed to implement geometry. Geometrical data provided in HUD (or LANTRIN pod) give us completely unchangeable conclusion that we are observing an object 4km high, from an plane that is 7km up.

Again, please offer a better explanation if you have one or some other unknown unknowns that might be present here.

 

[MrBeliever]

So we are now talking about a mysterious F-18 that can steer and roll without flaps...

 

[Realm]

So we are now talking about a mysterious F-18 that can steer and roll without flaps...

With banking, without those special maneuvering flaps (or landing/takeoff flaps used for that purpose). The control surfaces used for that banking is a different matter. And you can't just calculate their effects twice, or canceling out each other. We don't know their exact positions, but we can see the resulting banking, and use well known equations to calculate the turn rate from that and TAS.

Edit: Some details about those other control surfaces:

An aileron (French for "little wing" or "fin") is a hinged flight control surface usually forming part of the trailing edge of each wingof a fixed-wing aircraft. Ailerons are used in pairs to control the aircraft in roll (or movement around the aircraft's longitudinal axis), which normally results in a change in flight path due to the tilting of the lift vector. Movement around this axis is called 'rolling' or 'banking'.

Aileron - Wikipedia

On an aircraft the rudder is used primarily to counter adverse yaw and p-factorand is not the primary control used to turn the airplane.

Rudder - Wikipedia

 

[Realm]

While I agree with you that generally "cherry picking" is a big problem in reconstructing events, we are lucky here. Certain sciences offer immutable solutions. Here, @Realm had all the data needed to implement geometry. Geometrical data provided in HUD (or LANTRIN pod) give us completely unchangeable conclusion that we are observing an object 4km high, from an plane that is 7km up.

Again, please offer a better explanation if you have one or some other unknown unknowns that might be present here.

Exactly. The decisive factor is the availability of those rangefinder values, which give direct distance to the object. The gimbal clip does not have that, and that is why I haven't been interested in trying to perform similar calculations for that. Not knowing the distance leaves too much uncertainty.

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

See Paracast boys (and maybe 1 or 2 girls? Hi @Constance and @Nina Garfinkel). Sometimes rabble rousing pays off especially on FB groups.)

I copy for you below Garry Nolan’s response to my goading on the TTSA FB group and my cheerily snarky response to him.

========

Garry Nolan Tom Mellett -- I never calculated anything, so please retract the claim that I calculated something. Disinformation doesn't help your cause of rabble rousing. I reported a claim from the pilots and radar. Period. In addition-- sorry to say this-- no one said we'd land a saucer on the White House lawn. We provide chain of evidence information. And sorry if everything isn't laid out for you like a sunday picnic. The data is sadly classified. And there are good security reasons for that. Do you want to know how paranoid CIA and DoD people are about giving out classified information? They lose their jobs and their pensions-- or they end up in prison. All you lose is you Facebook reputation, such as it is. No wonder Jacques warned me the UFO community is full of whiners and I should stay away.


Tom Mellett Hello Garry, so nice to hear from you. If you like, I will copy your message here in full and post it on both Paracast and Metabunk, including your scolding of me. “It takes a village” you know.

For the record, I am not a member of the UFO Community. I am neither believer nor disbeliever. Now that helps both my rabble rousing and disinforming, but I digress.

Say hello to Jacques for me. Last time I saw him, we ate lunch together (with Hal Puthoff and Christopher Bird) at the SSE Conference in Austin in 1994.

And also, for the record, my reputation was in the tank long before Facebook, so I can’t even blame Mark Zuckerberg for that.

Am I missing a gene for disclosure? You’re the guy to ask, but I’m afraid there are a hundred or so ahead of me in the line outside your office.

In the immortals words of Oat Willie:
”Onward through the fog!”