Search results

Check this thread, it's discussed : Source: https://twitter.com/uncertainvector/status/1395401310502014981?s=20&t=bBXdLtJJTp7dzZFNoaNpng

You ask him, I haven't followed closely all this stuff about the L+S. I think he and others have already answered about how unboxed L+S does not mean the target in FLIR is not the L+S. We asked him again and he's adamant there is no confusion on what the target was.

I think he doesn't want to create false memories, there is a level of details we ask he simply cannot answer. Plus reluctance to discuss classified instruments of course. What is clear is that the object's stop coincides with the end of the video, as he's said so many times. In his AIAA talk...

Here are a couple about these 2 points: "The formation made that turn to the left [on SA] , the formation broke apart to a degree and got much more scattered. They kinda formed back after the 180-deg turn, and that is when the Gimbal object reversed direction" "The velocity vector was pointing...

I had a chance to join an interview of Ryan to ask a couple questions about the SA, and get a few clarifications. First, the fleet started to turn early in the video, with a conventional (not extraordinary) rate of turn. The 180deg turn obviously did not happen in the 2-3 sec when the Gimbal...

If this diagram is accurate, 30-35Nm is 55-65km, in the graph this corresponds to 2500-2700⁰F. Gimbal at 10Nm (~20km) would be ~1600⁰F.

Thanks Mick for adding the el values. One thing I noticed is that x-axis for the graphs of tail angle, speed and apparent size stop at frame ~1000 (like Gimbal), instead of ~2300 like the other graphs. Not sure if the x-axis is incorrect, or if the graphs stop at frame ~1000. Not a big deal but...

Thanks! Mostly ok after a bad fever yesterday. Indeed the post by Fin refers to the Fravor/Dietrich's encounter, but also the video in the first two points and conclusion.

I'm stuck at home with Covid, have a little bit of time to spend with this. Remember the initial hypothesis on this forum was that FLIR1 shows a distant plane flying away, like the Chilean UFO. By distant, it was suggested >50Nm...

The idea is that from the angular size on the vid, a distance can be retrieved for a certain plane's size. From that you can test how a trajectory will look on Sitrec. Spoiler : not good. Either it's too close to claim that a plane would not be recognizable in ATFLIR, or things get weird at...

I'm asking you to propose a scenario involving a plane that makes sense. Is this all you have, making fun of me?

This size would put the plane at a distance of 25Nm. 3800 ft loss in altitude, or continuous acceleration to catch up with the lines of sight. And still no any airliner features at 25Nm, when seen from the rear and side. I'm surprised not more people are taking the time to use the great...

I'm all for relying on the laws of physics. An airliner is about 4 times larger than a F-18, so to have that angular size when seen from 25° tail angle in TV mode, it needs to be at ~40-50Nm. With 5° elevation angle the airliner ends up flying at 60000 ft. There is no easy way around these numbers.

"6-8 nmi is a reasonable range to conduct a rendezvous after takeoff." Ryan Graves on Twitter And you tell me ATFLIR in 2004 was useless to identify a plane at 12Nm? Showing only a blurry blob? Interesting how the standards for evidence vary wildly around here.

Show us which plane fits the data then. Airliner? Losing 1500ft altitude? Is it landing to San Diego or Tijuana airport? What distance to not see exhaust? Calling them debunked when 10% of it is explained is too easy, sorry.

See my message above, be clear what you've debunked then. Saying it's a plane when it does not fit the data is both lazy and misleading.

That's fine if one doesn't make repeating claims that the video shows nothing interesting. A fair assessment would be "it does not zip off at incredible speed", rather than saying it's mundane an probably a plane. There is no clear evidence for that, as much as there isn't for zipping off at...

My calculation is that to have this angular size in TV mode, a F-18 seen under 25° tail angle (as needed to follow the lines of sight) would be at 12Nm. This is very close to not see any F-18 features for more than 1 min, under different angles in IR/TV modes, and different zooms. The plane...

If your goal is to debunk TTSA, cool. But I think it's more interesting to figure what may be on the video. It can hardly be a plane, you can just have a look at Sitrec FLIR1 and see how a plane needs to either lose more than 1000ft altitude, or speed up considerably. This is because the lines...

Lehto has recognized he cannot rule out birds, because we don't know the distance. I suppose they went for a distance of 1Nm or more assuming they were crafts, F-16s or else, as mentioned by the pilots. That gives you insane speeds of course. But they are likely birds/bats, and I feel like they...