Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 - 21:14
28.12.2017
Weiteren Background von Mick West/Metabunk zur F-18-FLIR-Video-Aufnahme der NYT-Story:
...
+++
Yes frustrating indeed. 15 mins fielding questions on metabunk would be immensely valuable. Elizondo hints at a trove of data analysis on the entire program in an interview with NPR:
"We had Ph.D.s, we had CI people, we had trained intelligence officers and human case officers — pretty much a full range of talent. Most of us tend to be, by nature, skeptical, because we are in the field of intelligence and national security. But I think once you get into the data itself and the specifics regarding what we're actually seeing, we begin to realize that there may be something here, a little bit more than just what people think are drones or whatever people may chalk it up to be.....Is this video coming from a true [Department of Defense] platform? Then what we do is apply some analytics that allow us to look at range, altitude, what was the aircraft doing that we were flying, who's flying it, under what conditions, sea states. So there's a lot of things at play into what we're looking at.
Source: https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/571868263/secret-program-at-the-pentagon-spent-million-to-study-ufos +++
I was told by an anonymous email that two people "scored the info, circumstances et al, around the "Gimbal" footage mystery ". I contacted one of them and they said "What I suggest you do is write to TTSA or maybe George Knapp or someone and ask. " George Knapp is the Las Vegas TV journalist and Coast-to-Coast host who has been granted access to TTSA.
+++
Do we even rightfully know that the target is a flying object? What evidence do we have that it's not, as Mick's analysis above suggests it could be, stationary but also on land or sea? Note that the FLIR is pointed -2˚ below . So could it be aimed at distant land we can't otherwise make out?
alcione.org/FAM/FLIR_CONCLUSION.html
+++
Do we even rightfully know that the target is a flying object? What evidence do we have that it's not, as Mick's analysis above suggests it could be, stationary but also on land or sea? Note that the FLIR is pointed -2˚ below . So could it be aimed at distant land we can't otherwise make out?
I don't think so, as movement of the clouds works best if they are behind and below the object.
+++
+++
+++
Video says it's "2° below aircraft axis". Does that mean the primary axis as if the wings were level (or like measured as if it was looking straight ahead from the nose, as in "forward-looking")? So in this case that would be equal to level ground, as the altitude is more or less constant. It can't be relative to a plane that is in 20° angle turn as the value stays the same even as the plane banks and camera rotates.
+++
+++
4911 Views
