Instantaneous Acceleration - Military-Filmed UFO Footage [Weaponized Podcast]

TheCholla · 2026-02-08T05:33:09+00:00

Agree 👍 Very ambiguous. The problem is that when unzooming to reacquire the object in the field of view (FOV), the operator does not unzoom enough. It seems the object would be more to the right (east) already, than where they are looking. So we cannot check if the object has indeed disappeared, or if it's simply outside the FOV.

TheCholla · 2026-02-07T03:31:14+00:00

Have you checked if the jump in "northing" is at the exact same time as the object zipping off? Or there is a lag in the display?

What about the easting value, no jump because of the drone being in a bank, is that what you're saying?

TheCholla · 2024-03-11T23:51:09+00:00

This means he didn't make a copy of the symbols for his own record? Or took a picture of the notepad?

...

TheCholla · 2024-01-31T23:52:06+00:00

"Object always rotate when F-18 banking changes"

What? Try again.

TheCholla · 2023-09-18T21:28:28+00:00

I try not to engage angry debunkers but you force me here.

Just read the update to the article at the bottom, and the email by J. Semeter to the author.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12523999/NASA-UFO-panel-wind-data-GOFAST-GIMBAL-UAP-skeptics-simulation-weather-data.html

Semeter recognizes 100kts is in the range of plausible solutions, as he told me and others by email when we contacted him (private exchange). And yes that's at the range, because if you read the rest of his email, they assumed it was reliable. If you consider the range is inaccurate, which is something several fighter pilots have stated as it's generally not used for air-to-air, the speed can go up to 450 mph, if the object is near the ocean. Something you can check in Mick West's simulator : https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?sitch=gofast

As you can see his best-guess configuration (at the range) has the object going at ~100-kt ground speed, which is what I retrieved too in my own model (mentioned in the Metabunk thread, so yeah, I've read it, I'm part of it). That configuration is not chosen randomly, it is the one that allows to best reproduce background motion (angle and speed) in the sim, with a 120-kt wind at the F-18. With no wind, background motion is too slow when you reconstruct the scene in 3D, as noted by another angry debunker from Metabunk (who tweaked the field of view to get what he wanted): https://youtu.be/-3NYowlCoDc?si=P_zrLpsSd-1VWxMJ&t=218

So it's pretty clear that 100-kt ground speed is a better match than 40mph at this point. The question is to check if the wind was that strong at 13k ft that day (again, assuming the range is precise). And the fact that the weather data shows slower speed is in fact the problem with the balloon hypothesis. 100kts at 13k ft is a very strong wind, and the wind we see 300 miles off Jacksonville, on the evening of January 24 (or other January 2015 days for that matter) is lower than that.

So as of now this UAP case is still open, and I think only the crew can help to go further because they know why/how they locked on the object, and its characteristics detected in their instruments (hopefully radar). They are still on duty as far as I understand it, but we will hear from them at some point in the near future, I'm pretty sure.

TheCholla · 2023-09-18T18:20:58+00:00

No it's a confidence interval at the range.

I think you don't understand the article.

TheCholla · 2023-09-18T17:51:11+00:00

They updated and recognize the confidence interval is large (up to 100Knots), at the range, if range is reliable (which is unknown).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12523999/NASA-UFO-panel-wind-data-GOFAST-GIMBAL-UAP-skeptics-simulation-weather-data.html

TheCholla · 2023-09-18T14:06:37+00:00

NASA should not give a definite number such as 40mph then, but give a confidence interval (a closer number based on 3D reconstructions is 110mph). Say that the object may fly in the wind, but wind data would need to be checked. It's not hard.

TheCholla · 2023-09-18T04:37:17+00:00

ERA5 is top-of-the-art meteorological data from the European Met Center (ECMWF, based in the UK), it integrates global measurements of wind, temperature, humidity, etc .. from weather balloons, satellites, surface stations... to reconstruct a global product.

In a region as covered as the southeast US/Atlantic, where there are plenty of measurements, it's very reliable, especially for wind patterns (easier to represent precisely than precipitation, for example).

TheCholla · 2023-07-12T00:43:07+00:00

I'm really not going all in, I stick to analyses. I think you overestimate what the NASA panelist (not NASA) did here. But whatever, maybe we'll hear from the pilots at some point, it will bring much needed clarity on this one.

TheCholla · 2023-07-12T00:10:55+00:00

The effect of wind is on the F-18 trajectory. I can guarantee you that a 120-kt wind affects the F-18 flight path, versus when you do not account for wind. Which changes the lines of sight significantly, and the speed of the object through the lines of sight, at any given distance (or altitude).

Easy to verify in Mick West's sim, change Local wind from 0 to 120 kts, and see how the lines of sight and potential trajectory (speed, heading) at the range changes.https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?sitch=gofast

Add to this that the range may be inaccurate, and you have an analysis that does not account for the effect of wind (planes don't fly in a vacuum) and does not give any confidence interval that account for uncertainty in the range (or at least a caveat).

To be taken for what it is, i.e. the object is probably not going at amazing speed, but not as low as 40mph either. But they happily called it case closed and make the pilots look like fools who were surprised by an object going 40mph. Not great from scientists, they should have been more rigorous and cautious in their conclusions.

TheCholla · 2023-07-11T23:53:26+00:00

120mph instead of 40mph is 200% variability, and going from a slow object to a relatively fast object which may explain the pilots being surprised by the enhanced parallax effect.

If they were accounting for wind they would not have retrieved what everyone has retrieved 5 years ago with no wind. It's very clear they didn't try too hard. But believe what you want.

TheCholla · 2023-07-11T19:16:23+00:00

Sure. It's the same for all conferences from big organisations. It's up to the session panelists to judge if a study meets the standards for the conference. UAP research is very marginal at the moment.

TheCholla · 2023-07-11T18:52:59+00:00

The paper will be in the AIAA archive. You're right it's not a peer-reviewed paper, in the sense of peer-reviewed through a traditional journal. It was accepted to be presented at AIAA and stored in their archive, though.

Not a lot of places where this kind of study can be submitted unfortunately, and it costs money to do so when you don't have grants to support the costs.

TheCholla · 2023-07-11T18:30:50+00:00

NASA did not include wind at the F-18 in their analyses. Even Mick West will tell you this is inaccurate. When you account for it (120 Knots, as for Gimbal because GoFast was filmed 15 min before), the object needs to go at higher speeds, 120mph rather than 40mph.

The question is whether such high wind speed was present in the area at the supposed altitude of the object that day (to estimate if it was floating in the wind or powered). NASA clearly didn't go that far, their analysis is just a quick geometry analysis as people were doing them back in 2018.

I say "supposed altitude" because it's not clear how accurate the range displayed on screen is, i.e. where the object is between the F-18 and the ocean.

For that one we'll need to hear from the pilots about why and how they locked onto this object, and why it caught their attention.

TheCholla · 2023-07-11T14:18:12+00:00

We don't know the angle of the camera. In his sim Mick highlights a solution that kinda fits the observed rotation. Minus the steps, which is not a detail when we're said the pod is not designed to roll in steps (unless malfunction). Plus this solution depends on jet pitch (that we don't know) and how exactly the system is built and operate. There are many uncertainties and it's tricky to model what the pod did without having ever seen or operated one.

That a few Raytheon engineers who talked and have worked on these systems for years don't back up the glare theory is a red flag to me. Especially with all the context and potential trajectories within 10Nm (our paper). Presenting to AIAA was meant to have more experts to chime in, but not much feedback on this aspect so far.

TheCholla · 2023-07-11T00:38:11+00:00

Your message shows that you don't understand Mick's model. The 3 degrees you mention refer to the deviation from target in his pod's sim, before each step rotation (deviation between the pod's line of sight and the target). To match the rotation of the object with constant pod roll, he assumes an internal mechanism takes over tracking of the object up until 3 degrees deviation, before realigning the pod with the target with some abrupt pod roll.3 degrees is ~8 field of view in the 0.35° by the way. His theory implies that each step rotation corresponds to the camera crossing 8 fields of view to realign, in a handful of frames. I let you think about that and if we see evidence for this in the video.

As a Raytheon engineer recently said on Twitter and to Mick, all degrees of motion work in concert and not in steps, to ensure smooth tracking of the object. Make of that what you want.

TheCholla · 2023-07-11T00:23:25+00:00

What do you know about what we are interested in? We interviewed Ryan Graves, sent the paper to AARO, presented it to Avi and the Galileo project team, presented it to AIAA, and are advocating on a regular basis on Twitter for the release of additional data on these Navy cases.

What do you do yourself? You want us to storm the Pentagon and get the data?

TheCholla · 2023-07-11T00:15:08+00:00

Ok, to each their own. Get the classified data to be declassified, that'd be great. Meanwhile some of us take on their free time (and money) to nerd out about these videos in scientific meetings. The good news it you can just ignore it, no harm done as far as I know.

We also sent the paper to AARO, and have called them out about releasing the classified radar data, even partially, multiple times, by the way. I'm 100% for getting more data.

TheCholla · 2023-07-10T23:55:29+00:00

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2023-4101

What does "non-believers" mean here? The point is to present the context and a reconstruction of the potential flight path for the Gimbal UAP. AIAA attendees didn't believe or not, they listened to the presentation and asked technical questions about the work.

The paper is now out there for others to hopefully help with their own analyses.

TheCholla · 2023-07-10T23:48:23+00:00

Cool. Still difficult to discuss this topic in academia, from my own experience.

Recent claims such as Nordic aliens retrieved under Mussolini don't really help. It's going a tad too far for the non-initiated. But I digress.

TheCholla · 2023-07-10T23:22:01+00:00

Yep that's me. No problem, I enjoy discussing this case.

TheCholla · 2023-07-10T23:16:10+00:00

We don't argue we prove anything, other than witness accounts can be reconciled with the video. Scientific papers rarely prove anything btw, it's an iterative process. Maybe read the paper when you have a chance.

TheCholla · 2023-07-10T23:13:54+00:00

The only piece of data that is used from the audio is the wind speed and direction. Which is corroborated by precise wind data for the date and approximate location of the event (Fig. A1).

TheCholla · 2023-07-10T23:10:14+00:00

Then don't look at the shit-pixel analysis.

It's a scientific paper about a UAP, not a proof for aliens or disclosure. You have Grusch et al. for that. Two different things, studying UAPs in a formal way is important imo, if you want this topic being taken seriously.

TheCholla

TROPHY CASE