Search results

The object(s) displayed on the SA page were much closer, inside 10 NM and therefore inside the "LOS intersection point." (Minor quibble, there is no LOS intersection point. By my analysis, the slowest that anything can go while remaining in the sightline is about 75 knots.) If my hypothesis is...

I overlaid black lines where I have consistently found "new clouds," and then did a very rough eyeballing calculation of the area under the curve for each segment: This supports that the curve may be a bit high at the end. (About 1/4 of a field passes in the last segment.) This is the...

I measured the average velocity for each second of the oblique "Graves trajectory" at 10 NM — both the speed in 3D (like an airspeed, always positive) and the velocity in 2D (as would be seen on a radar screen, stopping and then going negative) — and made scatter plots. I attribute the weirdness...

I'd like to clarify (or re-clarify) terminology that I've used in this thread: straight-line trajectories and banking trajectories. By "straight-line trajectories" I mean those without any horizontal acceleration component. By "banking trajectories " I mean whose with a nonzero horizontal...

If your object trajectories inside 10 NM don't slow down, change direction, and go backwards starting around frame 850, then your model is wrong. If they do, and the object is climbing, then the trajectories have a "weird U-eye shape." This will be my last reply to you on this off-topic...

That link is garbage. Here's the real article, and a screenshot. (Yep, that's as good as this "remarkably high-quality footage" gets.) https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/ufo-hunters-capture-high-quality-26297483

Hardly conclusive, but I spotted this yesterday on Twitter:

Here's what the camera view looks like when I remove the cloud constraint. This is with a circular path. I hope you can see why models that aren't constrained to the cloud motion are crude and not helpful at this point. The angular precision the clouds provide is critical to getting results...

Some difference yes, but not much. If we significantly sloped the cloud bank (which is not something that marine layers do), it would just place the straight & level solution somewhere else. I can't emphasize this enough: Translational variations, like the cloud height changing over time, have...

They're more than useful, they're the only dataset that provides precision angular information, both laterally and vertically. I discussed that here, in this thread. I linked it earlier in the thread, but all of the models and scenarios are here.

If the object takes an oblique trajectory, starting inside 10 NM and approaching the F-18, we still get “the hook” — just stretched out. It has a stronger vertical acceleration (a function of distance and approaching velocity), as well as a stronger horizontal acceleration (a tangent function of...

As far as I know, the Gimbal object was never seen with the naked eye by anyone. I think he's talking about other encounters. In the other accounts he's given, he was looking at the Gimbal object on a different plane's avionics suite. But they didn't necessarily know it was a malfunction. It...

Maybe, but not necessarily. The wings could be the same temperature as the background and blend in. The background (I think) is space, the heat of which is also what the upper surface of the wings are reflecting. And with only 2° of incidence, we wouldn't see much of their upper surface at all...

You can say that again. I threw together a scenario where the object follows the 10 NM line that I had created, to see the 3D shape of such a trajectory. Interestingly enough, it doesn't only come to a horizontal stop while accelerating vertically, it changes direction (something you can see if...

Your comments have helped me fine-tune my script, so thanks for that. I encourage you to start the other thread as you had mentioned. I don't think anyone is referring to the encounter as mundane. The glare rotation is unusual, as is the coincidence of a fleet of objects on radar (whether that...

If that number is airspeed (like TAS, true airspeed), yes, they're the same. 400 knots TAS with a 100-knot headwind would have a ground speed of 300 knots, assuming perfect measurements. You're just swimming upstream. 400 knots with a 100-knot tailwind would have a ground speed of 500 knots...

Are you saying the position of the cue dot falsifies the straight & level scenario at 30 NM? As I understand it, the cue dot doesn't give us any new information except for the aircraft's angle of attack. 380 knots isn't hauling ass for any jet other than the Cirrus. It's not "~400 knots against...

The cloud parallax is close to zero...but as others have mentioned, it's not zero. The angle between the sightline and the Scenario #5.x vector (30 NM straight & level) at the end of the video is somewhere between 15° and 7°, depending on relative cloud motion. If they lined up exactly, I could...

Agree...although it's another necessary condition that needs to be met, that does not need to be met with a straight, constant-speed trajectory at 30 NM. Then again, the 30 NM scenario has the necessary condition that Graves' account is wrong. Any small jet, I think, except for the...

Close — I get 380 knots. Airspeed is airspeed. All speed measurements are relative to the air mass, however it might be moving.