Pentagon releases UFO footage

[Felon]

Did you watch the video? The military drone is stationary focused on the objective and the UFO then fly's by though the fixed none moving camera so we can judge its speed without the drone moving.

You know that footage was taken by an MQ-9 Reaper with a targeting-pod right? They can fly at up to 50000 feet, so it would be been flying around 400kph.

Those targeting pods have incredible optical systems, the drone can loiter above the target and just circle around with the TGP focused on a specific point and it would look like the drone wasn't moving at all, as all of the sensors on the drone can slew on the target, the whole time.

Even in the report, it states that this didn't exhibit any "enigmatic technical capabilities" so again, you're just getting carried away and don't understand what you're looking at, jumping to conclusions and basically putting 2 and 2 together to get 100.

 

[Pottsey]

You know that footage was taken by an MQ-9 Reaper with a targeting-pod right? They can fly at up to 50000 feet, so it would be been flying around 400kph.

Those targeting pods have incredible optical systems, the drone can loiter above the target and just circle around with the TGP focused on a specific point and it would look like the drone wasn't moving at all, as all of the sensors on the drone can slew on the target, the whole time.

Even in the report, it states that this didn't exhibit any "enigmatic technical capabilities" so again, you're just getting carried away and don't understand what you're looking at, jumping to conclusions and basically putting 2 and 2 together to get 100.

If that was the case don't you think the experts would have picked up on that when they did a deep analyses of the object and video and did a frame by frame study. I am not getting carried away you are making up fake narratives and seeing things that are not there in my posts just like all the made up fake explanations you keep using, to write things off.

 

[keyser van someone]

Re: this one, not sure what we're calling it. Forest cloud adventure? https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/12ddzxs/another_clear_uap_caught_on_film_flying_by/

This on board pilot view inside cockpit, is just showing another possible explanation of the sound changing when the camera is being moved around. As the pilot moves his head the tone changes a lot, this could explain why people think it's coming from the UAP but is actually just the engine noise changing.

Also I'd like to point out that I'm not sure about any of this, I'm just coming up with other possible explanations. But there are others who think they know for sure what it is.

 

[Pottsey]

Re: this one, not sure what we're calling it. Forest cloud adventure? https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/12ddzxs/another_clear_uap_caught_on_film_flying_by/

This on board pilot view inside cockpit, is just showing another possible explanation of the sound changing when the camera is being moved around. As the pilot moves his head the tone changes a lot, this could explain why people think it's coming from the UAP but is actually just the engine noise changing.

Also I'd like to point out that I'm not sure about any of this, I'm just coming up with other possible explanations. But there are others who think they know for sure what it is.

That's not the same as what happens in the UAP plane video. The UAP video you hear what sounds like the UAP approaching and pushing air aside from its speed and you hear the correct doppler effect as it passes by the other direction. This isn't the same as the pitch change on moving around the cockpit. The key difference is the sound in your video is related and matches the movement to the pilot. While the sound in the UAP video sounds different and matches the movements of the UAP. Cockpit movement cannot explain away the sound shockwave from the UAP. Its one of the things that makes me believe its more likely to be real and not some fake CGI or slow moving object as faking that kind of sound is near impossible. By real I only mean a real physical object rather then someone faking it with editing.

 

[Tony Edwards]

Wow

 

[Felon]

If that was the case don't you think the experts would have picked up on that when they did a deep analyses of the object and video and did a frame by frame study.

You seem unable to understand the basics here.

The experts never implied there was anything extraordinary about it in the first place, so they're not going to waste time disproving things they never said are they?

They said:

It was an unidentified spherical object captured by an MQ-9 Reaper drone.
There was nothing special about it.
It remains unidentified and is an open unresolved case.

That's the sum total of what they said, which is government speak for "We don't know, we probably never will know."

I am not getting carried away you are making up fake narratives and seeing things that are not there in my posts just like all the made up fake explanations you keep using, to write things off.

You see how silly this is?

You post a video showing this spherical object, making specific claims that it's something special or extraordinary, yet you're not even looking into the original source or what the US defence people said about it in the presentation. You're just jumping 10 steps ahead, exaggerating and inflating the thing out of all proportion.

All I'm doing is repeating back to you, exactly what the US defence official said.

 

[Roar87]

Screeeech typing essays in the UFO thread seemingly annoyed people are talking about UFOs

 

[keyser van someone]

That's not the same as what happens in the UAP plane video. The UAP video you hear what sounds like the UAP approaching and pushing air aside from its speed and you hear the correct doppler effect as it passes by the other direction. This isn't the same as the pitch change on moving around the cockpit. The key difference is the sound in your video is related and matches the movement to the pilot. While the sound in the UAP video sounds different and matches the movements of the UAP. Cockpit movement cannot explain away the sound shockwave from the UAP. Its one of the things that makes me believe its more likely to be real and not some fake CGI or slow moving object as faking that kind of sound is near impossible. By real I only mean a real physical object rather then someone faking it with editing.

Yes it does appear to be real rather than CGI. Took a while for me to hear the noise it's making. I'm coming from this as it's 'something more simple', so a drone, filled with helium and has some rotors attached would make a noise. The look of it flying through the air is just it tumbling around in the air. The footage cuts off too soon to be able to tell either way. The footage begins with the plane coming out of a turn and the camera ready to capture it, then the video ends with the plane beginning a turn again, this suggests that they made more than one flyby of this thing. Where is that footage? Who are these people? Do they make other footage? What is that content? etc

 

[keyser van someone]

MQ-9 Reaper with a targeting-pod

I want to learn more about this system (but it's classified?). What would happen if there was some dirt on the lens? Would it appear to be an out of focus ball moving across the air?

 

[Felon]

I want to learn more about this system (but it's classified?). What would happen if there was some dirt on the lens? Would it appear to be an out of focus ball moving across the air?

Basically the MQ-9 uses something called the MTS, (multi-spectral targeting system):

These things (which are under most combat aircraft) are iterations of the same thing - a gigantic great camera (somewhere between 2500-3000mm focal length) which a whole load of additional image processing capabilities. They can do things like FLIR, detect rocket plumes, integrate with different systems (targeting, weapons, etc) but in the end it's essentially a gigantic great camera, on a very very smooth rotating fixture under the nose, or under the wing and of course, it costs $millions of dollars.

In combat situations, you can fly around all over the place and the camera can automatically lock onto a fixed point, and slew other sensors and weapons to the same thing at the touch of a button, so you can loiter around above a target and not lose sight of it.

Due to the focal lengths involved, anything on the lens wouldn't be rendered or visible at all, as with an ultra high focal length lens - the closest focusing distance is hundreds of meters, or even miles away - anything closer than that would be so blurred it would be invisible, you could wave your hand in front of it and you'd probably only see a slight darkening of the image.

Sensor dust would show up, because the sensor will render whatever light is being projected onto it (the image circle from the lens, which provided was in focus would be sharp) because sensor dust sits directly on the sensor - it would be visible.

However, it doesn't look like sensor dust to me, that does look like a real object floating stationary above the ground, and the illusion that it's moving, is actually caused by the fact the Reaper is flying at around 400kph and the camera is looking down on it, so it's basically parallax.

To give you an idea of what those of focal lengths can do, here's a video showing Lockheed Martin Sniper pod (used on F16s I think), observing targets 10 miles away;

 

[Pottsey]

You seem unable to understand the basics here.

The experts never implied there was anything extraordinary about it in the first place, so they're not going to waste time disproving things they never said are they?

They said:

It was an unidentified spherical object captured by an MQ-9 Reaper drone.
There was nothing special about it.
It remains unidentified and is an open unresolved case.

That's the sum total of what they said, which is government speak for "We don't know, we probably never will know."



You see how silly this is?

You post a video showing this spherical object, making specific claims that it's something special or extraordinary, yet you're not even looking into the original source or what the US defence people said about it in the presentation. You're just jumping 10 steps ahead, exaggerating and inflating the thing out of all proportion.

All I'm doing is repeating back to you, exactly what the US defence official said.

What you are doing is blanking out what you don't like, making up fake narratives to write things off, asking me to post sources then ignore them or selectively picking out little bits then ignore the rest. Then when I ask you to post a source to backup one of your many false statements you refuse. As for the videos I post I think your interrupting them wrong and your reasons to debunk them are incorrect like the done footage which does not look like a parallax effect to me.

We all agree we need more data but there is now more then enough data to strongly suggest there is something to the UFO's/UFA reports over the years and there really does appear to be a physical unknown objects flying around. There was a clear pattern and consistency in the data when looking over all the reports throughout the world with region to region being constant in what is being seen and reported. To quote myself "They said over half of the objects are round metallic spheres being silver/translucent in colour, around 1 to 4 meters in size. No Thermal exhaust detected but moving at speeds up to Mach2 which rules our birds, balloons, garbage, drones and planes. Pretty much always in the 15k to 25k foot altitude range although they did say that is where most of our sensors are." That pretty much matches the description of what most people would call a UFO and the majority of reports fall into this group.

Though out this thread time and time again I have said I am not convinced UFO's are Alien and that UFO does not = Alien. But at the same time we should be past the post of saying UFO's are not real or are just birds, balloons or other nonsense which doesn't explain away the sightings. UFOs are clearly some sort of real physical object flying around that requires study to find out what they are. Yet there are people on here who don't want to admit they are real and want to pretends its fall fake or balloons. I am sure with the right data we can figure out what they are but until that happens they are UFOs or if you prefer UAFs.

Its not like there is some mass delusion across the world with region after region all reporting the same style of object behaving in the same way including counties that hate and don't talk to each other. Plus all the countless consistent eye witness reporting the same thing. So you think every single one of them is lying? I am sure some of them are and some of its a mistake. But the shear volume from all the different locations should be telling in itself that something is happening.

 

[Felon]

But at the same time we should be past the post of saying UFO's are not real or are just birds, balloons or other nonsense which doesn't explain away the sightings.

If you could be arsed to read the actual government report, it even says in there that half of the damn UAP reports turn out to be balloons...

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-2022-Annual-Report-UAP.pdf

Since its establishment in July 2022, AARO has formulated and started to leverage a robust analytic process against identified UAP reporting. Once completed, AARO’s final analytic findings will be available in their quarterly reports to policymakers. AARO’s initial analysis and characterization of the 366 newly-identified reports, informed by a multi-agency process, judged more than half as exhibiting unremarkable characteristics:

26 characterized as Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) or UAS-like entities;
163 characterized as balloon or balloon-like entities;
6 attributed to clutter

 

[Pottsey]

If you could be arsed to read the actual government report, it even says in there that half of the damn UAP reports turn out to be balloons...

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-2022-Annual-Report-UAP.pdf

That’s from July 2022 with the extra data from April 2023 it was 52% that turned out to be interesting aerial phenomenon meeting the description I gave. 52% is a majority. Anyway why does it matter if 163 cases from 2022 are balloons or balloon like entries. No one denies that some UFO's reports are mundane objects. What we are interested in are the ones that fall outside mundane explanations and show signs of advanced technology. Before you go down your crazy route I don't mean anti-gravity, an object flying at up to mach 2 is enough to be called advanced technology and rule out balloons.

Did you watch the entire video its rather interesting how they go into the way they analyse the evidence. If it was a parallax effect it would be picked up with the structure they use. As they have a team that specializes in how sensors work in the real world environment who analyse the content away from the other teams so as not to be made bias by other teams findings.

They also said from the same video and I will have to try to briefly paraphrase as I cannot find a transcript to copy and paste which I would have preferred. “so when it comes to UAPs and the Airforce. Across the board, across the world and unfortunately the existence of advanced UAPS in the US Airspace and US military installations is not a new phenomenon. The Navy officially acknowledged that between 2004 and 2021 they had 11 near miss involving UAP’s that required pilot action. As a result they established a protocol for pilots to report on dangerous encounters.”

They used the words advanced UAPs. As in not balloons but advanced technology flying at high speeds. Pretty sure we didn’t have civilian drones as far back as 2004 causing near misses with fighter pilots at Mach 2 in no fly zones above military bases. Pretty sure we are not talking birds either like your other failed attempted to debunk.

 

[Felon]

If it was a parallax effect it would be picked up with the structure they use.

I don't care what anybody says Pottsey, that sphere in the video you linked, captured by the MQ-9 appears to be moving due to parallax, I can tell you this because I'm an expert in images, cameras, sensors and lenses, it's absolutely obvious and it's a reasonable and likely explanation.

And like I said, the offical comment on the image is basically, "This is all we have, we don't know what it is, it's an unresolved case" and that's basically it.

 

[Pottsey]

I don't care what anybody says Pottsey, that sphere in the video you linked, captured by the MQ-9 appears to be moving due to parallax, I can tell you this because I'm an expert in images, cameras, sensors and lenses, it's absolutely obvious and it's a reasonable and likely explanation.

And like I said, the offical comment on the image is basically, "This is all we have, we don't know what it is, it's an unresolved case" and that's basically it.

The problem from my point of view is they have the full data and information and you are making assumptions and I don't have much faith in your assumptions based on your track record of being wrong in this thread. For all we know the drone was stationary and they would likely have details on the state of the drone. This should allow them to be able to be able to work out if its a parallax effect or not. If they rule it out as a parallax effect fair enough but they have not yet and they have a good team of experts from the field. Lets wait for them to finish the analyses and see what they say when they complete the study of that footage rather then jumping to conclusions based on guess work.

The next report I believe is not too much longer due in the next few months I think? The AARO seem to be taken seriously, have proper teams, a proper research structure with funding and resources to look into UFO'S properly without stigma and that is what we need. A proper Scientific approach. If will be very interesting to see what they produce over time.

 

[Felon]

The problem from my point of view is they have the full data and information and you are making assumptions and I don't have much faith in your assumptions based on your track record of being wrong in this thread.

Well they've given us the data - they've released all of the video from the drone for us to see, they've said that's the extent of it - it's not like they're holding anything back.

From that data they've determined that the thing in question had no enigmatic properties and posed no threat, meaning it's benign in nature.

From that "data" my assumption or hypothesis, is that it's a balloon or some other piece of junk floating quite high up, and it's apparent speed is an illusion (which occurs all the time) which I think is a reasonable and likely explanation. It might be something else, something more advanced - but because the object isn't doing anything (it's not moving fast, if at all), there's no evidence that it is anything more advanced.

I don't really see how (unless you're mental) how you can really argue against or disagree with what I'm saying, to me based on what I can see - it seems like the most likely explanation.

To put it differently - how can you disprove that theory based on the video, what parts of the above hypothesis are wrong, based on the evidence?

 

[Pottsey]

“To put it differently - how can you disprove that theory based on the video, what parts of the above hypothesis are wrong, based on the evidence?”

They are holding back the drone data, the speed it was moving, height, you can see the drone UI blurred out on the video which is understandable. They can use the data we don’t have to see if its parallax or not while you are just making guess’s. You say its benign but we have no idea if that orb is gathering data over a site of military interest or not. Some of these UAPs are clearly advanced which the entire point of the study into them to see what they are.

I believe Dr.Kirk’s point was to show two videos from both ends of the spectrum one that looked like a UAP but turned out to be nothing and was a case closed and the drone footage which has stayed as an anomalous UAP. I cannot directly rule out your hypothesis from my own skill set but I can infer from seeing the process of how it works that the people who analyse these videos know the drone’s height, flight speed, and have multiple sensor experts at the top of the field who know about parallax.

The Dr talked about how one would expect sensors to act is not always the same in the field. Which is why he has separate teams who specialise in sensors and how they act in the real world. These experts team analyses the data without contact with the other teams to see if they come to the same conclusions. If that’s not enough to close the case the teams meat up at the end to debate the data together.

Its very clear the teams are highly skilled and are doing deep analyses’ frame a by frame of the data. Yet none of them not even the sensor experts came to the conclusions it was a simple parallax effect. Perhaps they know the drones speed and can rule it being a parallax effect out or perhaps they was some level of parallax and they worked out that level and it wasn’t enough to just be a balloon.

What ever the reason they decided parallax effect wasn’t enough to close the case and decided to keep it as UAP anomalous data. Unlike the 2nd video which they decided was a simple explanation and closed that case. If it was parallax, don’t you think they would have worked it out and closed the case?

 

[Felon]

You say its benign but we have no idea if that orb is gathering data over a site of military interest or not.

No - I’m not saying that, the official doing the presentation said that, he said it has no enigmatic properties and posed no threat.

So it is by its very nature, benign.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

unless you're mental (sic)

 

[haveaniceday]

A mysterious object has been found that is 10 million times brighter than the sun. Scientists can't work out why it hasn't exploded
https://www.businessinsider.nl/a-my...ientists-cant-work-out-why-it-hasnt-exploded/