Weird object or UFO as seen from a U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet’s ATFLIR (ATS referenced )

I totally forgot that we have this card to help us with these encounters.

Pick your poison.

a reply to: Blue Shift

i was refering to the EW systems at play, they moves made in the FLIR video do not require any special propulsions systems.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: butcherguy

I believe it did mention the speed of the headwind that the objects were flying against (was it 125 kt ?)

Not displayed on screen. Its the WO officers screen in the video, not the Pilots HUD.

The 'voices' report they are flying 'against' a 120 knot wind.

(I always go by what i can see)

The NYT video changed the subtitles to miles vs knots now.
Listening to the voice, I hear 'knots' , but the NYT says that he says 'miles'.

Proper is knots... its the Navy. I hear "miles", so will you...

Whoops.

If one is using knots, then mile would mean nauitcal mile.

Also in the audio it sounds like he said knots while the caption wrote miles when the pilot was refering to windspeed against the UFO.

a reply to: jrod

If one is using knots, then mile would mean nauitcal mile.

"They're all going against the wind, the wind is 120 Knots to the West."

So this time I heard Knots, in context a reference to wind velocity.

I am so tired of listening to this audio. Its not making sense. Giving only tidbits of inconclusive info, imo, its a carefully designed hoax.

Has anyone got any video of f18s tracking any aircraft on FLIR under similar conditions?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: jrod

If one is using knots, then mile would mean nauitcal mile.

"They're all going against the wind, the wind is 120 Knots to the West."

So this time I heard Knots, in context a reference to wind velocity.

I am so tired of listening to this audio. Its not making sense. Giving only tidbits of inconclusive info, imo, its a carefully designed hoax.

Has anyone got any video of f18s tracking any aircraft on FLIR under similar conditions?

Getting conventional imagery is a good idea. You need baseline imaging samples of known aircraft to verify that this UFO is unique.

Note the lack of a heat plume from the aircraft. The FLIRs should see a heat plume from a conventional aircraft. Now no heat plume could mean unconventional propulsion, or a spoofed image.

a reply to: gariac

im guessing EW the glow around the edges is very suspect as well as the RADAR noise/lack of.

E.A
(not to Gariac)

S.A most likely means synthetic aperture. It's a kind of radar.

en.wikipedia.org...

Sandia radar jammin paper

originally posted by: gariac

Note the lack of a heat plume from the aircraft. The FLIRs should see a heat plume from a conventional aircraft. Now no heat plume could mean unconventional propulsion, or a spoofed image.

You're looking at the heat plume, that's what the blob is. No "unconventional propulsion" can be inferred from this video.

Here's an example of the way IR cameras can create image artifacts.


(If the whole pic doesn't show, just right click and open image in new tab)

and a video


In fact, just read this thread at Metabunk. Mick West demonstrates both the blob effect and the rotation effect with an IR camera.
www.metabunk.org...

I'm getting suspicious that at least a few people on ATS are very aware of these effects and would no doubt support this explanation, yet have chosen to remain silent.

a reply to: Iridomyrmex

Many of those inferred people on ats dont need the headache from explaining the obvious and logical to others over and over and are happy to let you have the honors and salute you for your efforts. As they say. You can bring a horse to water but you cant make it drink.

a reply to: Iridomyrmex

I'm willing to buy into the "object" being just engine heat, but still no plume detected.

Metabunk mentioned the EC-2. That could be the source of the altitude change data.

a reply to: gariac

Dont be surprised if no heat plume was detected. Just sayn.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

you think they would be running IR suppression against their own guys?

i would think that would be part of the 'GO TO WAR' button

a reply to: penroc3

Im really not going to get into it. Its better that way.

Interview with one of the pilots. Most things have already been in the articles previously in this thread.

Start at 32m33s


Apparently a more in-depth article is coming from George Knapp about the government program today.

a reply to: C0bzz
lol Lets all take a minute and think about the poor guys at DIA responsible for keeping a lid on this particular program.
They've had better days, i'm sure.

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: jrod

If one is using knots, then mile would mean nauitcal mile.

"They're all going against the wind, the wind is 120 Knots to the West."

So this time I heard Knots, in context a reference to wind velocity.

I am so tired of listening to this audio. Its not making sense. Giving only tidbits of inconclusive info, imo, its a carefully designed hoax.

Has anyone got any video of f18s tracking any aircraft on FLIR under similar conditions?

Getting conventional imagery is a good idea. You need baseline imaging samples of known aircraft to verify that this UFO is unique.

Note the lack of a heat plume from the aircraft. The FLIRs should see a heat plume from a conventional aircraft. Now no heat plume could mean unconventional propulsion, or a spoofed image.

The lack of visible 'plume' could be a combination of greater range and tracking from behind. The object is hot, in portions, a white glob. This is due to 'air breathing engines', not something UFOs are 'known' for.

Thats what I wanted to know the range, which does't appear on screen.

originally posted by: C0bzz
Interview with one of the pilots. Most things have already been in the articles previously in this thread.

Start at 32m33s

Apparently a more in-depth article is coming from George Knapp about the government program today.

None of his extraordinary claims about novelistic flight characteristics appear in the actual videos.

He was less than a mile ("half a mile") from it. The imagery is captured at night apparently, not sure how he managed to see the ocean 'disturbance' either.

Now this is interesting.

www.popularmechanics.com...

Popmech article here says that there the USS Princeton was tracking the object for 2 weeks? Faintly tracking the capsule with its SPY-1B radar system.

I've not read this before.

originally posted by: grey580
Now this is interesting.

www.popularmechanics.com...

Popmech article here says that there the USS Princeton was tracking the object for 2 weeks? Faintly tracking the capsule with its SPY-1B radar system.

I've not read this before.

Wheres the corroborating 'radar imagery' ? Being a full disclosure and all....

a reply to: intrptr

Those were my thoughts as well.

But I wonder how much of a radar image there would be if the radar return was faint.

Certainly here we have the best UFO case in years.

a reply to: intrptr

According to the TTSA report, it happened at approximately between 12:00 and 13:00 (during the day). The FighterSweep article also states they launched during the morning into a "clear blue Southern California sky".


a reply to: grey580

Do Ticonderoga-class usually save radar tracks?