Robert Wilson
-
Posts
30 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Robert Wilson
-
-
I want you to see how "stable" a lock looks like on a real external target:
1. Here, on minute 0:40, the sound that you hear means that the missile is locked on the target:
2. Here at 1:05
3. Here at 4:37
4. Here at 0:58
5. Here at 2:02Can you see the different between this and the lock in the gimbal video?
An object on the pod's window explain perfectly why it is so stable.
0 -
1 minute ago, iNow said:
That it’s a post-dictave illusion, a narrative we apply to understand preconscious neural activity largely beyond our control... An outdated relic of religious and philosophical wanderings which took place before we had modern knowledge of neurobiology.
Exactly.
0 -
-
Here is a short video animation that demonstrate (in my opinion) what we see in the Gimbal video. The airplane is taking off and there are some dirt spots on it's front window, I marked one of them with a yellow label. See how when the airplane changes it's Tilt while taking off, the horizon is going down but the spot stays exactly in the same place:
https://i.ibb.co/71Nngjv/Airplane-Take-Off.gif
This is the source video that I used:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIeErwntFUU
0 -
Here are two animations that Illustrate what we should see when the object is External, and when the object is Internal:
External: https://i.ibb.co/tpH1JQW/External-Object.gif
Internal: https://i.ibb.co/L943PJY/Internal-Object.gif
As you can see, the second animation (Internal Object) fits exactly what we see in the video:
Example 1: https://i.ibb.co/MChpLGb/Animation1.gif
Example 2: https://i.ibb.co/CPwhkNJ/Animation2.gif
0 -
There are few short moments in the video where it does looks like the object moves with correlation to the view, for example here in minute 0:30 till 0:31:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMOv6baIaso
But it happens just when there is a sudden fast movement. I think that the explanation for that may be that the camera inside the pod is sitting on some kind of a shock absorber to prevent it from breaking when there is a sudden movement, for example during air turbulence.
I guess that the camera (which is quite heavy) is not connected stiffly to the pod, it has some loose that allows it to move a little. So if there is a sudden vibration of the pod to the right, the camera inside will move to the left, so it will looks like the view and the object on the pod's window are moving in the opposite direction - to the right. But after a moment or two the camera returns to it's previous position.
During most of the video the object behaves like it sits on the pod's window, it's movements are NOT correlated with the view, the clouds and the horizon, as you can see in the examples that I gave in my previous post.
-1 -
Hi again,
First, about the animations that I showed here a few weeks ago:
1. https://i.ibb.co/VWjFPMb/Toggle-1-2.gif
2. https://i.ibb.co/zx2WhbP/Toggle-3-4.gif
I don't buy the explanation that the 'UFO' stays exactly at the same orientation because of the flare of the IR camera. Yes, we saw some examples of flare that changes its orientation when the camera is turning, but to say that it is SO ACCURATE that it makes the object looks like it's not moving at all, is ridiculous in my opinion.
Second, I played some more with that, I added a color palette to the frames to enhance the horizon line, and I'm sorry to say but it behaves just as you expect from an object (like an insect) that is standing on the pod's window (again, from inside, not exposed to the wind and the cold).
Check the new animation gifs that I made:
1. https://i.ibb.co/MChpLGb/Animation1.gif
2. https://i.ibb.co/CPwhkNJ/Animation2.gif
3. https://i.ibb.co/7XpqKPX/Animation3.gif
4. https://i.ibb.co/mS0dLBs/Animation4.gif
See how the 'UFO' stays Exactly at the same spot although the horizon itself is going up and down quite a lot. If it were an external object, I would expect it to also move up and down together with the horizon, but it doesn't.
All the evidence shows that whatever it is, it's fixed to the airplane and it's not external.
0 -
1 hour ago, lightpanther said:
What systems were you working with? Can you provide links to their specification and architecture? And specifically, to their heat generation profiles? Though, altogether I still think this doesn't really go anywhere without a Raytheon expert, so I am going to stop saying this as it is just going on repeat.
I prefer not to get into details about the systems that I worked with, but I remember that when I touched it (specially at the base) it felt like at least 55°C - 65°C.
You can search in Google specifications for an average thermal camera for aircraft, I don't think that it will be much different.
0 -
15 hours ago, lightpanther said:
.....
1. I agree that we have to wait for an expert answers, otherwise this talk is pointless.
2. I'll just say that I had the chance to work several times with that kind of systems (thermals cameras for aircraft) and I can tell you that they produce a lot of heat. Yeah the sensor itself is cooled to a very low temperature by a cooler that is attached to it, but all the electronic around it is hot, the camera itself is very hot. So I have no doubt that when a camera like that is sitting in it's small space inside the pod it is just like a Heater, and the air around it is hot. An insect will have not problem of cold when he is next to the camera, and if it will get warmed by the camera, then it will looks hot when it's standing on the pod's window.
3. I saw a video that I can't find now that gave me the impression that the IR camera inside the pod is fixed in it's place, and only the front pod's unit with the window is rotating around it. If that's the case and the pod's window can move and and pass the view to a fixed camera inside, then it may explain how it can bring the object to the center even if it's fixed on the window.
4. To insert an image into the text you just have to paste the address of the image, that's all. If the image is on your local computer then you can use this free site to upload it to the internet:
Then after you finish click it to open, then right click on it, copy image address, then paste here.
0 -
4 hours ago, lightpanther said:
The fact that the target is acquired in the first place means that the sensor can track it and center it. This is not altered by the zoom function and has nothing to do with it.
Sorry but I don't have time to investigate this to the deep now, let's face it we are both not experts about how it works, we need to find someone who actually works with this system who can tell us if the infrared camera can move inside the pod, or if the algorithm can move the picture a little while it's in zoom mode. If the object was acquired while the picture was in zoom x2 (meaning that you see only part of the full frame) then theoretically the algorithm could move the zoomed area left/right/up/down to bring the object to the middle.
And, there is also the possibility that just by chance the bug landed on the middle of the window, which you know it's not that big...
4 hours ago, lightpanther said:Tracking isn't physically performed by "the algorithm" but by the sensor array. If the object is not free to move separately from the sensor array, then it cannot be tracked.
Again, we need to ask an ATFLIR expert to know, but as far as I know the type of tracking that we see in this video is done by an algorithm that follows the object in the image itself. So if the algorithm looks at the picture and think that the object move from left to right, then it will send the Pod a command to move physically to the right to keep the object in the middle.
The tracking algorithm sees a hot spot in the frame, and it sends signals to the pod to move here or to move there, it doesn't know if that hot spot is an external target of if it's on the window.
4 hours ago, lightpanther said:Insects would be at ambient temperature.
I think that both of you, you and Moontanman, are doing lot of assumptions which are not necessarily true about the temperature of the bug.
Look at this picture, as you know trees are not producing heat, do you think that the deer and the trees has the same temperature?
And let's look at some frames from the 'UFO' video itself, do you think that the clouds are Hot as the object?
You also forget that the pod has lot of Hot electronic equipment inside, so if the insect was first on this hot equipment, and only then he flew to the window, then it would still be hot.
4 hours ago, lightpanther said:First of all, an insect has to be inside the housing. This also assumes that Defense equipment is so badly designed that an insect could get into the sensor path of a high end tracking and targeting system in the first place...another pretty implausible notion. I mean, even your consumer level Canon or Nikon lens architecture has the wit to prevent that...
The pod is a large tank with lot of equipment inside, many times the technicians open the pod in order to do maintenance works. When the pod is open, what prevents insects and bugs from going inside and walks between the infrared camera and the pod's window?
4 hours ago, lightpanther said:Even IF an insect got in there, it would be dead. The vast majority of people who try this of course die, which you are neglecting to mention. In other words, this is special pleading as well.
If almost 25% of the people that tried that survived, then you can be sure that at least 50% of the insects in this conditions will survive. And again I remind you that it's hot inside the pod because of all the hot electronic equipment that it carries, so an insect inside will not suffer from cold, that's for sure.
0 -
3 hours ago, lightpanther said:
That's special pleading. The object is centered because the tracking has centered it.
That's a guess, you can't know why it in the center, maybe it just happened to go there, you don't have the beginning of the video to see what exactly happened.
3 hours ago, lightpanther said:I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. The tracking array is on a 3-axis gimbal, so naturally it will compensate for movements of the aircraft or object to keep it acquired.
I'm just saying that even if you will take an insect and glue it to the center of the pod's window during flight then there is a big chance that you will get exactly the same behavior that you see in this video. The tracking algorithm will see the insect that you attached to the window, and it will try to track it like it's an external object on the background of the sky and the clouds. Why shouldn't it track it? How should it know that it's not an external target? It sees something hot on the background of the sky and it's trying to track it like it was an airplane.
3 hours ago, lightpanther said:First of all, the object is much hotter than the surround and therefore not an insect.
You are guessing, you can't know by the colors in the video if the object is "much hotter" than the surrounding. In many infrared cameras the image processing gives (in "White Hot" mode) a black color to the coldest pixels in the frame, a white color to the hottest pixels, and all the other pixels get grey levels between. So even if the insect temperature is just 0.5 degrees hotter than the window it will be white (or black in the "Black Hot" mode).
3 hours ago, lightpanther said:The aircraft is at 25000 feet as you can see bottom right of the HUD...no insect would survive.
1. You don't know what was the temperature inside the pod, you forget that it's a closed box... if the aircraft rose to 25,000 feet it's not necessarily says that immediately within a second or two the temperature inside the pod drops below zero, and don't forget that there are many electronic systems inside the pod that produce heat.
2. There are stories of people who survived inside a wheel well of a plane (a landing gear compartment) so an insect will not survive it? Even for a few minutes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wheel-well_stowaway_flights
3 hours ago, lightpanther said:insects are cold blooded and other than moths or butterflies are at ambient temperature.
1. Many insects can produce body heat:
https://asknature.org/strategy/muscles-create-heat-to-warm-nest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_thermoregulation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28889866
2. It's logic that an insect inside the pod will be hotter than the cold window that it's attached to which is exposed to the frozen wind outside.
3 hours ago, lightpanther said:Where did you see this information about the camera/sensor? It doesn't make sense to me since the pod already has a 3-axis gimbal. Can you please link me to what you are talking about with the camera movements, and I will assess that when I see it.
Here:
https://www.metabunk.org/nyt-gimbal-video-of-u-s-navy-jet-encounter-with-unknown-object.t9333
"Here's the type of motion we are talking about rotation, and tracking on the exterior. This will be combined with internal camera movements to keep the horizon level."
3 hours ago, lightpanther said:I disagree. I am not saying that it is JUST glare. But I am suspecting it to be a non-solid object.
Well, I also disagree with you and I think that it is solid. I saw several examples of flare and what we see in this video is not even close.
See this two pictures that I created to show the different between the object and it's flare:
The black shape that we see in the "Gimbal Video" is too massive to be a flare, and it has a very clear shape.
It looks very solid to me, and I don't think that it's a flare, sorry.
0 -
11 hours ago, lightpanther said:
Robert,
It doesn't work that way.
If you look at Raytheon's own material and specification for the ATFLIR, you will see that the entire front pod structure, including the external housing, rotates to track the object. It is literally *not possible* for this to be a "bug on the lens" scenario. That is an object out in external space that has been acquired by the tracking system. My own view, as I articulated above, is that it is an amorphous heat and light signature, which is why the system is struggling to get sufficient range data. I also replied to your point about it seeming to stay in the same position. What you are looking at is mainly artefactual IR flare from the object, imo, and the attitude adjustment is not sufficient to change this (think in terms of rotating your camera lens when there is a lens flare in the frame). Only later, when the object itself clearly rotates, do we see a sufficient change.
Please understand that the tracking system could NOT acquire this object if it was attached to the system.
lightpanther,
1. Let's suppose that the insect decided to rest on the center of the Pod's window (on it's inner side of course) why wouldn't the scenario that we see in this video describe it?
2. About the movement of the pod (that you can see on the top-center of the display) it can happen because of the tracking algorithm that got confused and concluded that the object moves to the right, because as you can see the tracking aircraft is turning to the left toward the object, but the object stays in it's place so it looks as it's comming from left to right, so the tracking system makes the necessary corrections to bring it in front on the plane.
3. Also even in case that the insect was not in the center of the window, I read in another place that the internal camera inside the pod can also move independently from the pod movements, so it could change it's position in order to make the insect be centered on the frame.
4. Another point, we see on the display that the camera was in a digital zoom x2 ("Z 2.0" on the top-left) that's mean that you see only part of the full frame, so I don't know how exactly does it works, but the camera could digitally shift the zoomed frame up/down/left/right to make the insect centered.
5. I don't think that it's flare, I saw several examples of IR flare and it's not looks even a bit similar. The glare looks like a long, narrow beams that are coming out of the object, which is not what we see here. Also the contours of the object looks strong enough that it's clear to me that we are looking at the object itself, and not on it's glare.
5 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:In your gif, it kind of moves a little... if the thing was a distant disk, it seems still plausible
But, in the case of a insect what we need to know is the orientation of the camera relative to the plane.. if the insect is inside the glass thing, the camera wouldn't have to move at all. Maybe some of the numbers on the screen are the angles of the camera.It's pretty encouraging to see someone who got more negative points than mine
See my reply to lightpanther. Also I don't think that we need to know what is the orientation of the camera relative to the plane, because we see that the horizon (the real horizon) changes it's angle, so if it was a real external target there it should had have also change it's angle exactly the same.
0 -
2 hours ago, Edgard Neuman said:
I don't think the insect theory works... the object is in the center of the view because the camera has a pursuit system that detects objects and centers it.. (the two lines right next to the object are indicator of that system state) .. At the beginning the lines are bigger because the object is not in it, so the detection area is big. Once the system catch the object, it puts it in the center. In other videos you see the pilots trying to "catch" the object, meaning they orient the camera to it until the pursuit system takes control and start to automatically orient the view to maintain the object right in the center of the image.
Of course that this object is being tracked, how exactly does it contradict the Insect theory?
The system see an object on the screen and it's tracking it, it doesn't know if it's a flying airplane or if it's a bug on the lens that looks "flying" when it Integrates with the view behind it. It's sees a spot in the frame and it's following it.
Please explain why doesn't it move when the airplane rotate? Why the horizon line (that you can see behind the clouds) move perfectly in correlation with the artificial horizon of the aircraft, but the object stays Exactly in the same possition?
https://i.ibb.co/zx2WhbP/Toggle-3-4.gif
Only object that is attached to the airplane can explain that.
0 -
24 minutes ago, lightpanther said:
This was not part of the Nimitz incident at all.
However, It does seem that the gimbal object may remain in the same attitude when the tracking aircraft makes a slight attitude adjustment, but I don't think that the adjustment is sufficient for what is seen on the video to be that clear cut. It would need a larger correction in attitude to be certain, and we don't have one, because when there is a larger correction, both objects are in rotation.
Who said that it's part of the Nimitz incident?
Look again especially at "Example 2" that I gave, if you watch it on a big screen, in a dark room, then you see clear enough the horizon line behind the clouds (it looks like a sea) and it's perfectly correlated with the artificial horizon line of the aircraft, but the 'Object' stays exactly in the same position.
Sorry, an external object will not behave this way, it's very clear that it's attached to the aircraft.
0 -
25 minutes ago, Moontanman said:
Guys, I am not arguing this is a alien space craft, but the videos combined with the testimony of the pilots, the CIC operators on the ship, and the videos does lend far more credence the object or objects were external to the aircraft and not something inside or on the lens of the FLIR... Personally I think this is pretty weak evidence to hang aliens on, Drones of some sort injected into the training scenario makes much more sense..
As I said, it looks like there is a lot of confusing between several different events, it's not clear at all which testimonies are related to this particular even that I'm talking about. They may have seen something in the radar, which can easily be a flock of birds of flock of fish:
You can't say for sure that the target that they saw on the radar is also what you see on the FLIR screen.
Did you see the two examples that I showed from the video?
Example 1:
https://i.ibb.co/VWjFPMb/Toggle-1-2.gif
Example 2:
https://i.ibb.co/zx2WhbP/Toggle-3-4.gif
How does if fits to an external object?
0 -
The link that I gave is not available any more
Sorry that I don't have time to respond now, I'll just say that from what I read in other forums there is a lot of confusing in the reports between several different event that happened in different times and with different pilots.
As I said (not sure that in this thread) what will convince me is a film of this particular event taken from the second airplane. It's very strange that they where 2 aircraft there but only one of them saw this 'Object' in it's camera. I want to see this particular event from the other aircraft's camera, and to see that the object moves exactly the same way second by second like in this video.
I want so give you another strong evidence that shows that this 'Object' is probably not external to the aircraft.
I took several frames from this video and I just toggled between them, see how although the aircraft changes it's orientation, the 'Object' stays exactly in the same position, as you expect from an insect that sits on the lens (inside the pod of course, not exposed to the wind and the cold).
Example 1:
https://i.ibb.co/VWjFPMb/Toggle-1-2.gif
Example 2:
https://i.ibb.co/zx2WhbP/Toggle-3-4.gif
Also, it's to stable (when you watch the full video) and too blurry to be an external object in front of the plane.
0 -
38 minutes ago, Moontanman said:
Why don't you display the non infrared film?
I don't know of such video, do you have a link to give?
Do you have any proof that it's from the same event? Same day and same hour?
Because I saw an interview with the pilot David Fravor and he said that he did not see the "UFO" from his airplane window, so it will be very strange if a daylight camera did see it.
0 -
Hi all,
Anyone still reads here?
I opened a new thread with some new proves to my claim:
https://www.metabunk.org/robert-”gimbal-bug”-theory.t10960
See my last messages there.
Best regards.
-1 -
-
8 hours ago, pzkpfw said:
Ever been in a 747 and have a ships' radar pick you out?
I've already addressed that, why wouldn't you read the thread?
The problem is that you assume that what they saw on radar is what you see in this video, but that assumption is not necessarily true. The pilot reported that he saw a white spot in the water, it could easily be a large fish flock:
Or a flock of bird :
https://www.shltrip.com/sitebuilder/images/8s_many_birds_in_air_IMG_2209-1008x769.jpg
Isn't it a more reasonable explanation for what they saw on the radar?
As I said before, the pilot stated that he did not see the UFO from his aircraft window, he saw it Only on the camera screen.
0 -
25 minutes ago, sangui said:
I'm not sure but an insect could really stay on a jet plane during the flight ? The speed isn't too fast and the temperature isn't too low ?
Insects are known as a very resistant/robust creatures, many of them can withstand temperatures, pressures and G forces which are much greater than what people can withstand.
The speed is not a factor, when you fly inside a Boeing 747 airplane you fly at about 540 mi/h (or 870 km/hr), did you ever felt uncomfortable with that? So is an insect.
0 -
4 hours ago, zapatos said:
How about we interpret it to mean that "we do not understand how this works or which country built it, but it is clear from the G-forces that it is an unmanned craft."
Correct. So here is your choice.
1. It is something built by humans and is more advanced than what humans have previously built (we've seen humans build more advanced things millions of times), or...
2. it was built by aliens (we've seen aliens build exactly zero things, and in fact have no evidence of alien life anywhere in the universe.)
"Common sense" does not tell you that option two is the simplest explanation.
You forgot number 3, the simplest of all:
It's just a small insect on the camera lens, but everyone are too blind to see this trivial solution.
-1 -
3 hours ago, swansont said:
These statements are in conflict with each other.
You need to present evidence. Not "read(ing) between the lines"
I don't know what conflicts did you find in his statements, but I think that when he says:
"Things that don't have any obvious flight services, any obvious forms of propulsion, and maneuvering in ways that include extreme maneuverability beyond the healthy G-forces of a human or anything biological... that aircraft are displaying characteristics that are not currently within the US inventory nor in any foreign inventory that we are aware of"
then any average person with a little common sense understand that he is talking about flying machines which were not built on earth.
I don't understand how else you can interpret this.
1 hour ago, Moontanman said:I saw your picture, I also saw the videos, what you portrayed could be anything and there is more than one video. Don't pain me as the bad guy here, everything surrounding this is either stone cold superior technology or complete BS. I tend towards technology and I think it's ours but to push one possible ide as though it has to be true does nothing but make us look like debunkers instead of investigators. Doesn't get caught up in the us and them part of this. It's not either UFO nuts or government shills. There is a phenomena, often inexplicable, it might be totally explainable or it might be totally aliens, I doubt either solution is likely... BTW, stop saying you have given evidence, all you have given is your opinion, nothing more...
I'm having a very hard time with you.
Occam's razor says that if you have several explanations for some phenomenon, then the simplest explanation is most likely the right one.
You can call it evidence, you can call it opinion, you can call it whatever you want. I gave several strong points that are all pointing to a very simple explanation which is much simpler and earthy than a "superior technology that we don't know about".
1. The object shown in this particular video looks Too Stable to be external to the aircraft, it looks like it's glued/stuck to the lens. I saw many aircraft training videos and when you see other plane in front it's NEVER that stable in relation to the airplane sight.
2. It looks Too Blurry which suggests that it is Very close to the camera lens, an external objects would look much sharpen.
3. The pilot said that he didn't see the object from the window, but Only on the camera screen. If it's a real flying object in front of the aircraft then why didn't he see it also from his window?
4. When you carefully examine the object in the video, you can see something that looks very similar to an insect legs, as I showed here:
https://i.ibb.co/X4X7spt/Tic-Tac-Bug.png
And also it's shape reminds very much a shape of an insect:
https://i.ibb.co/yNsf5Kv/Insect.png
5. We didn't see any video showing that particular event from the other aircraft, I think that it's very strange. If it really was an external object then I would expect that the two aircraft will see it in their cameras, not just one.
Again, I think that my explanation is more simple and more logic than the explanation that they implies to.
-2 -
29 minutes ago, swansont said:
This is not a conspiracy discussion board.
No conspiracy, it's common sense.
Ex-UFO program chief Luis Elizondo:
"Things that don't have any obvious flight services, any obvious forms of propulsion, and maneuvering in ways that include extreme maneuverability beyond, I would submit, the healthy G-forces of a human or anything biological"
"These aircraft - we'll call them aircraft - are displaying characteristics that are not currently within the US inventory nor in any foreign inventory that we are aware of"
Don't you know to read between the lines?
0
US Navy UFO video
in Speculations
Posted · Edited by Robert Wilson
I agree, that's why I gave the following link in one of my previous posts here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BRDCxNEuyg
itsNiKu,
I don't have time right now to start this conversation again, just two points:
1. I don't think that the aircraft in the videos that I showed here are much closer than the 'UFO' object (if you assume that it's a real external target)
https://i.ibb.co/r3m2SxF/Lock-On-Target.jpg
2. Ignore the digital display, look only on the real view and the horizon, this is what I expect to see if the object was a real (external) target:
https://i.ibb.co/mTKVwqh/Real-Target-In-View.gif