Explained: "Go Fast" UFO Video - Not Low and Not Fast - Like a Balloon!
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 06. 2019
- The "Go Fast" UFO looks like it's going really fast, but a simple analysis of the data available in the video shows that it is not.
So, the History Channel's "Unidentified" show was wrong and "To the Stars Academy" was wrong. Not only that, but they are either the worst 3D analysts in the world, or they knew it was wrong a year ago and just kept going with it because it's more interesting that way.
Metabunk "Go Fast" analysis thread: www.metabunk.org/go-fast-foot...
"Not So Fast" video, explaining the parallax illusion in depth. • UFOs Filmed from Helic...
3D recreation with a NON-MOVING object, demonstrating the extent of parallax. • GO FAST 0.7 FOV tracked
Nimitz/FLIR analysis: www.metabunk.org/2004-uss-nim...
Gimbal analysis: www.metabunk.org/nyt-gimbal-v...
Metabunk analysis thread: www.metabunk.org/go-fast-footage-from-tom-delonges-to-the-stars-academy-balloon.t9569/
@John Coppers I don't have all the answers. I doubt I've done any more here than the military have done. Just I can talk about it.
@D K The computer gave no such indication.
What program or software is used at 4:36? Looks like a really useful tool for geometry. Please reply.
Forgive me the simple laymen question. If the jet is going much faster than the object, then why isn't the range or distance between the objects increasing?
@@captainanopheles4307 The range is
decreasing because the jet is following the object. It's like a car on the road in front of you going slower, so you get closer to it.
What I find to be the most amazing thing about this that no one seems to be talking about is how badass this camera system and software are. To be able to track an object that small, and lock onto it, with a movable camera mounted on a jet flying that fast, is nothing short of astonishing.
It is possible US radar can't lock onto a balloon that size. Whether it can or cannot is classified. But that would explain why the military is so sure of itself in considering these objects unexplainable with current technology. We do know that multiple radar systems are tracking these things, and there are comments that indicate these objects have been observed by satellites. It is quite possible the balloon explanation is a red herring and has been utterly ruled out, but civilians do not have access to all the information. Fascinating.
@@deandeann1541 First of all, I never mentioned the word balloon in my post. In fact, I never mentioned any kind of speculation about what it is or isn't -- none at all. All I was commenting on was the camera system and software. From this data and other publicly available data, it's very easy to get a determination on how large the object is, anyway.
I was speculating myself. Too many people on the web are touchy - imagining offense where there is none. I think it speaks to where our society is right now.
@@deandeann1541 Lmao okay wack job
Old comment but I think this is exactly why they classified it. Like you don't want the enemy to know you can auto track a bird or small drone at several miles while going mach 0.62. it's beyond incredible.
I bet your kids never got away with anything, Mick.
It would be the worst speech to sit through, too! My Dad always explained the spanking before it came…
I bet they did. They embarrassed him like he has embarrassed himself debunking SOME of the pentagon videos. They knew their dad played mental gymnastics to fit his narrative.
I think he makes a very good argument for this video. However because I know my maths and what I was watching I wasn’t impressed with this crappy video anyway. I can’t believe credible journalists went crazy over this.
@@tottenhamhotspurish ^ Example of someone who doesn't like the answer and didn't do the math. 6:28
@@tottenhamhotspurish Well James, the world is waiting for your superior math to prove your point.
this thing is back in the news again balloons for goodness sake
My son is taking Geometry and just about to start Trig. I showed him this video and I can honestly state that he is in awe of your problem solving and math skills.
In a year he'll be running rings around me. This is pretty basic stuff - it's fun to apply the basics to real-world problems.
This is essentially the same as the classic problem of calculating the height of a tree givent the distance to the base, and the angle to the top.
Key advice: draw a diagram, label everything.
This is a perfect example to seed passion for mathematics - the calculations are as easy as can get and you get some real answers that seemed to be hidden from our view. Great thinking to show it to your son! :)
@@MickWest actually, the only thing about your analysis that I didn’t like was the math.
I love that you thought to show your son this. Keep up the good parenting!
Actually, when you say so, videos like this one should be shown to students at around middle school age when more advanced math like algebra is introduced and they inevitably ask what exactly they're ever going to use it for :) .
What program or software is used at 4:36? Looks like a really useful tool for geometry. Please reply.
GeoGebra
Awesome video. What tool are you using in 4:35?
Geogebra. Here's a link to that setup. www.geogebra.org/classic/vsdfgxtx
I completely agree with you on this one. One thing to note that you didn't mention is the direction the plane is flying. If the object was nearest the surface of the ocean, then the plane would either have to be stationary or traveling in the same direction of the object to achieve the visual we see in the video. If the object is at ~13,000 feet with negligible velocity, then the plane would have to be traveling in the opposite direction that it appears the object is traveling - and this can be confirmed by the angles of the IR sensor. It is ~45 degrees to the left and we know that the 0 degree position of IR sensors are in line with the planes heading - this means the planes is traveling in roughly the 2 o'clock direction in reference to the video.
The pilot who went public admitted that this was approx 20,000 feet above the sea to congress. So he concurs with you. He does say though that the object went at varying speeds and angles that were not possible for modern jet fighters. Your argument stands up against the documentary clip (which I admit was poorly edited and exaggerated) but this pilot is highly experienced and seems a credible witness. I think this clip shows only a fragment of what was actually witnessed.
So the precise evidence we have specifically makes the perfect case and has all the data to show that it’s halfway between the water and the airplane, and that it’s moving at roughly wind speed. But what we should conclude is that despite this evidence, there is surely other evidence that contradicts the hard evidence we have here…. And also we should not believe our eyes because we should appeal to authority?
I’m sorry but that’s horribly unconvincing. I’ll change my mind when “The rest” of the video is shown AND somehow destroys the actual data on full display in this video.
What tool is that dynamically adjusting top down diagram near the end made with?
Geogebra. Here's a newer version: www.geogebra.org/m/vsdfgxtx
@@MickWest Very cool. Thanks!
'But you can't use just one set of evidence. You have to look at it all. And we have trained observers!' Well anyone can make mistakes no matter how trained they are. You can't deny the math on the screen. Fly and trust your instruments, not with your eyes as the saying goes....
If it is moving slowly like a balloon why does a tracking device need multiple sweeps to get a lock on it?
It is not moving slowly. Mick West has no knowledge of ATFLIR. The velocity of the object is right below the range. The Vc number stands for "velocity of close," and tells you how quickly the object is approaching. It is travelling in excess of 200 mph.
@@cyberia55 That is what I said. In any case, your math is wrong they are not travelling along the same vector. Further, saying "because of parallax" is ludicrous when you don't know the actual distance. Unless the radar data is released (which has range data) you cannot claim to know the actual distance.
@@cyberia55 I'm referring to ground distance vs air distance. The two aircraft were not traveling along one vector - we don't know the other object's velocity, only its apparent velocity.
If you can’t say where the math or logic is wrong saying so is worthless.
@@TieFighterDragon Lol, have you ever taken astronomy (where parallax is traditionally discussed)? Mick West's claim is grounded on the premise that the object's distance is far closer than claimed by the pilots. This would contradict the pilot's claim that the object came from the water (indicating that it was much farther away). You may need to review your knowledge of parallax before critiquing my comments.
i have a question. if the range decreases but the planes altitude stays the same, does this mean the object is getting closer to the plane? also if you subtract the range from the altitude, is that the distance the object is from the ground?
The range is the diagonal distance to the object. If it gets smaller, then you are getting closer. The video shows the math needed to calculate the altitude of the object.
I am wondering, does the banking of the jet to the left alter the angles of the camera in a way that isn't obvious? If the camera is pointed 45 degrees to the left of the jet and 26 degrees below the jet, but then the jet banks left about 13 degrees, wouldn't you need to add 13 degrees to the tilt of the camera. Wouldn't those numbers be indicating the direction of the camera relative to a level jet?
No, the angle is relative to horizontal. You can see the plane banks quite a bit, and the angle does not change
Mick West got it. Thanks for the quick reply!
Great videos Mick, could I use a few second of the footage of your explanation + credit given for a video about this topic? thanks in advance!
Anton Petrov Ballers coming together here in the comments
I don't think he would mind. Plus I think your viewers would love to see a video like this too.
@Anton Petrov Hello wonderful Anton! Your video brought me here, thanks for making it :D
I saw in one of your videos how you dismissed the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis as being totally implausible. I think we have to be careful we aren't skeptical for the sake of being a skeptic. Funny to see you in the comment section here, no doubt trying to use footage to be the skeptic once more.
Hi Mr Anton.I love your videos.These analysis of ufo videos are amazing and on the accurate calculation.Same as your videos.
I love it when "inexplicable" mysteries are dissected this way. Just as beautiful every time.
Yup, he pretty much nailed it :)
@Dana Kuss I don't think you know what a skeptic is. Being scared of death doesn't make any belief in an afterlife or supernatural true. There are lots of mysteries, a skeptic will say they don't know, a believer will make the claim they do know and act on that belief, often causing harm and refusing any future evidence that may correct them.
@D B Why do the planes have cameras? It's because human eyes aren't very good at getting details from objects miles away. Human brains are pretty good at misidentifying things though, and misremembering events.
@John Coppers All I know is he presented a solid explanation for what it could have been. Can you punch holes in it? As far as people at the Pentagon--I'm sure they came to a similar conclusion but since nothing is 100%, they released the videos without an explanation. Probably to garner public interest and receive more funding, but who knows.
@Will.JWhere are the problems with his explanation? Did he make some math errors you noticed? He offered a plausible explanation for this object's movements. He's done much more work then everyone else assuming this must be e.t.
what's the number below the RNG number and it says WC or VC? i heard a former pilot saying it's closing in speed in knots but that doesn't add up
A small white round object traveling at wind speed?
Guys, we’ve been arguing for years about the high-tech version of the “most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen” video of the plastic bag in “American Beauty”
I'm back here to rewatch after Chris Lehtos video, he is hell bent on his assertion that the RNG displayed is inaccurate.
I think Ill trust the 18 year Air Force veteran over the video game guy.
@@cstuehs Focus is not super complicated. You can figure this one out for yourself.
@@MickWest Mick I know you did a lot of research into how these lightning pods work. I think the most important part to his argument is the RNG indicator. How is it coming up with that RNG indicator number if the lazing isn't occurring and there's no radar data?
@@ntme9 No, the important part is his misunderstanding of focus. That's the majority of his video, and the argument he uses to claim the RNG is wrong.
@@MickWest The focus of objects is subject to opinion but if it can be proven that the RNG is accurate or erroneous is pretty important.
Occam's razor...just use a little trig, and some thoughtful analysis and there you go!
Can you imagine, easy as that! An internet content creator with no relevant scientific background debunks 70 years of corroborative data
@@Snarfles_ What a nice authority fallacy, where is the data? That shitty videos?
Nailed it. It's funny because now that I have seen these analysis videos, when I look at the original videos, I can't understand how I ever saw anything extraordinary.
Crazy how nobody talks about the pilot saying there is a fleet of them 😂
Just wondering, how come it looks too much like the object is moving towards the F-18 Super Hornet (even with parallax effect), contrary to your overview diagram showing that they are moving in the same general direction? Especially at the start of the video where the camera has not obtained a lock yet. Also, when the jet banks left at 48 degrees, why is the angle still getting greater even at 50 degrees to 51 degrees left? If it gets greater, it seems like the object is moving towards the general direction of the jet and not away.
The object IS moving towards the jet. It gets closer.
@@MickWest But isn't your diagram showing that the object is moving upward from its start position, away from the jet's start position?
@@Intekon Think of a fast car overtaking a slow truck on the highway. The truck is moving away from the car's initial position, but the distance between them is reducing since the car is faster.
Thank you for the excellent breakdown! Had a suspicion it was parallax and slightly annoyed this analysis wasn't published along with the video release.
will you allow me to post this video with subtitles in portuguese all over brazil? of course, citing the sources!
You can add subtitles by clicking on the three dots next to "SAVE" at the bottom of the video and on "Add Translations" but Mick West needs to enable community contribution
I've enabled community contributions. Let me know if that works for you.
But you can create a Portuguese version if you like. With citations.
@@MickWest ok, thank you.
Isn't the turn angle 30 degrees, not 3? Your last drawing is misleading And isn't the speed ~250? That gives a turn radius of about half a mile per 1/4 of a circle. The object was at 41 degrees left and then ended at 58. The jet was turning towards it, and it was at a 45 degrees angle moving to the left (see white square top left for a plot), initially, and the camera was still turning 17 degrees. So although the jet approached it (1.96 (not 1.95) to 1.92), the jet almost maintained constant altitude, and that means the object was moving up 0.03 feet while the jet moved 10, that means the object was also moving up at 10 km/h or 6.8 mph plus the horizontal distance given by the 17 degrees. At the speed of air of 40, it could not turn 17 degrees away. It is about half the speed of the jet, 125 kts. But the jet banks 30 and 10 feet up. I'd have to do more calculations, but I doubt anyone would read. But the plot shows the object escaping downwards. That means the object that was coming at a 45 degrees angle was escaping the jet turning 30 on a 0.5 mile radius turn towards it, and in 60 seconds the jet was about to lose it. The speed would be around 500 mph or 800 kmh, which would actually be 0.6 x the speed of the sound, even higher than the "hauling ass".
You were too focused on the parallax effect, when if you plot the dots on a 2d plane and then add the 10.03 feet up, calculating the duration of the event you can get the approximate speed of the object, horizontally fast, but not so fast up. But you still have to consider the diagonal speed. Not close to the water, but in fact, around 3.66 km away, so, not so far either in terms of safety at that speed.
Anyway, that is not what a balloon can do. And it is pretty fast. The fact is simple: The jet was losing it. Banking more than 30 is dangerous.
On what information are you basing it being carried by the wind at nearly 50 mph? Was it going in the direction of the wind? Was there 50 mph winds?
@Will.J well... david fraver is attending UFO convensions... who's the idiot now? lol
At 13,000ft wind speeds of 50mph would be considered normal.
On what basis did he estimate 20 to 40 knots? He explains that in the video. We know how fast the jet was moving, we know the angles and range to the object during that time, so it looks like it moved x distance in y seconds. Dividing those gives you a speed.
@@CurtCameron The information he used is clearly wrong though. The velocity of the object is given RIGHT BELOW the range. Its "Vc" is 200+ knots.
@@jonjo2598 I'm not an expert in these numbers, but that "Vc" to me looks like closing speed, how fast the distance between you and the object is decreasing, and that's the kind of number I would expect for 370 kts forward speed, overtaking a slow-moving object that's below you and left of your centerline. I don't think that number is the velocity of that object relative to the ground.
Just heard you on a podcast today (Into the impossible) and it's so good to get a realistic possible explanation of the video. As much as I respect the pilots they are really relying on the "From Authority" argument to dismiss logical investigation
Well alians do exist.. he might be right about this.. but we do exist.
@@biglove2487 I'm sure aliens do exist, the chances are mathematically almost certain ... somewhere. But they certainly have not visited Earth. Distances to travel being too great and a hypothesis that species tend not to last very long at an extremely advanced technological level. Will humans be around in 1000 years? I seriously doubt it give how we are making our planet uninhabitable for ourselves. If there is a short window of opportunity between a species become space-travel capable and then becoming extinct (say, 1,000 to 10,000 years) then the chances of two space-capable species ever interacting over the vast distances of space is extremely unlikely, even if billions of such species exist.
Emphasis on possible..not concrete evidence..thats a bad as believers saying it true without research
@@ShizukuSeiji distance...ur basing ur theories on knowledge we have...its higher physics...its what knowledge they have that matters...black holes...warm holes...portals..dimensions...short cuts..thats how they get here as well as the fact that they lie how far away other life is
@@chrisgoddard7241 And you have evidence of what "knowledge they have?"
Obviously it's Sonic the Hedgehog, I mean come on it's even called (gotta) "Go Fast".
😂
Did you show this research to the history channel?
This is fantastic analysis. I've got a friend that is drinking the koolaide of a recent Netflix special. He's usually skeptical, but he's believing now. Videos like this one, firmly rooted in logic and reason, will help get his feet back on the ground.
Nope sorry buddy. There real. And there here.. it's time everyone starts believing..
@@biglove2487 You saying so does not make it true. I know that's a disappointment but you do need to accept that.
@@ShizukuSeiji all these bull shit videos are ours. Of what ever mick west is saying... I'm from New Mexico and have seen with my own eyes 👀 I repeat! My own eyes 👀..
@@biglove2487 Learn how to write proper English first my brainwashed little buddy, you sound very naive.
@@biglove2487 LOL. Do you have any idea how unreliable your eyes (not to mention your memory) are? Research over the last couple decades has shown that eye witness accounts are virtually useless when it comes to seeing something unfamiliar.
Jaw on floor. I've been following the the sceptic / rational community for a long time and you're the best in the business. That was amazing.
So what angle is the jet flying in relation to the object (disregarding the camera angle). And do you think it matters?
UFO Guys: We've got this amazing footage of alien aircraft. Mick West: I've got math.
except turns out he's wrong
Here is an animation in Blender which I've made to approximate a recreation of the 'GOFAST' video : czcams.com/video/B5mEWssI6oo/video.html (the Blender file download link is in the video's description).
Amazing work!!
I agree with the geometry and answer but don't know where the range comes from. The FLIR systems I have found information on have a laser rangefinder on them. I don't think the pods on this aircraft has a laser rangefinder. So, where does range come from?
It could be also from radar. Don't forget there are other systems on the aircraft.
Mathing hurts my head. Easier just to believe it's aliens.
Also, natural explanations are boring. More exciting to just believe it's aliens.
I boggles my mind that people would put the "alien hypothesis" on the table in the first place...including Mick West. I admit it is more plausible that aliens exist in the universe rather than unicorns because no "magic" is required for aliens. However, what people speculate about aliens is just about the same as invoking "magic". That we can just skip over all the engineering and physics problems because the "alien" technology might be millions or years ahead of our or something.
Have you seen NASA basically copy/paste your work? Haha. Good job Mick. I always said, they should just hire you.
After watching this video, I realize how important it is for kids to learn math really well. :)
Are you sure about the 26deg angle between the horizon and the object ? From the video, it looks like there is quite a plunging view on the object. Shouldn't 26deg from a plane at 7500 m give a different perspective ? I know it's zoomed a lot but still this gives me the impression the angle is larger than 26.
Plus you don't explain where the meaning you give from the numbers on the screen comes from (the range from the object is pretty obvious though). Is 26 really the inclination of the camera ? With a larger angle, the distance between the object and the ocean gets much smaller.
Using "looks like" and "gives me the impression" is what fools everyone. There's no way to tell from looking at the video whether it's at a shallow angle or looking down at a bigger angle, unless you look at the numbers. He is trusting that the numbers are basically accurate, but that's the best data we have.
@@CurtCameron I know. I found more information on the screen data on the metabunk analysis thread (I had missed that at first). It seems this is truly a 26deg downward angle
5:24 - it's a tie fighter that got lost
Part of a convoy or something?
Probably headed toward that small moon...
Great analysis, thank you very much!
You're a fool.
@@berrywhite1379 Well that was a quality well-argued response. And you conspiracy nuts wonder why us sensible people think you are dumb?
In the full video, the ranging appears to be getting actively blocked later into the video than shown here. Is there a logical explanation for that?
Bugged range measurement. Maybe?
I went back to look at the original unedited video after seeing your comment, it shows RNG numerics all the way to the last frame ending at 3.3nm. So what are you talking about?
@@ntme9 I actually see now it's one of the other clips that was released along with the one in this video.
But in this video you can see the RNG goes to 99.9, which Cmdr. David Fravor who engaged the tic tac said is active blocking.
Here's the video czcams.com/video/W1kGmUliDNs/video.html
@@MrOoglebog this isn’t the Tic Tac though right?
This entire channel is a breath of fresh air. THANK. YOU. MICK WEST. I’m so sick of the lifted trucks, the tattoos, the drugs, the 5 second attention spans. So much mediocrity. So much idiocracy. I know I’m not alone. TY!
People want the sensation. Thank you for the explanation.
Great work Mick, as per usual. There are a couple of things I can add to this from my own wheelhouse - aviation.
Assuming we are talking about level (non climbing or descending) turns, the turn rate of all aircraft is very predictable up to around 75 degrees angle of bank, beyond which actual performance limits of the aircraft play a big role.
Regardless of how fast you are going if you maintain altitude the aircraft MUST turn if it banks. As to maintain altitude the vertical component of the aircrafts lift must remain at 1G. In order to do that with the aircraft banked the aircraft must pull more than 1G, this creates a horizontal or turning component of its lift. At 45 degrees this works out as 1.4G, 60 degrees works out as 2G and at 75 degrees your looking at 3.9G to maintain the same altitude during the turn.
All of this is to say that if you know the aircrafts speed in TAS (which is ~370knots) and you know the bank angle (which is 13 degrees) it’s easy enough to plug those figures into any number of turn rate performance calculators and get you very close to the correct turn rate for the jet in the video. I did this for you and ended up with a result of 0.681 degrees per second. Feel free to double check that and run the maths yourself.
I don’t have the video myself but it should be easy to measure the time the aircraft is maintaining the same bank angle in the video and then work out the total resultant turn angle from that.
As a way of double checking this you could also take a distance measurement between the jet and object half way through the turn as opposed to just at the beginning and end, then see at what turn angle the calculated movement of the tracked object becomes a straight line, as I doubt a weather ballon is making many turns when just being blown by winds aloft.
Hope it helps! Good work!
I did such analysis back in the day:
parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/04/analysis-of-ttsa-2015-go-fast-ufo-video.html
Calculation was done on a second by second basis. The resulting speed of the target is 48mph +/-wind difference.
The trajectories are plotted in the second picture there, and it's not a straight line, but pretty close. The limited precision of those instrument values obviously causes some variance, but based on some experimentation I did with the numbers, rounding possibilities and so on, I think some of that curvature is real, although there's not enough precision to determine if it was caused by horizontal and/or vertical movement. In any case, it's too small to properly indicate if it's more likely to be a bird or a balloon in wind.
My first guess would be a bird, perhaps a goose or something.
Didn't they say the object was going against the wind? If it was a balloon, how can a balloon go against the wind?
You are thinking of the "gimbal" video. This is the "go fast"
Thank you, I said it was a Mylar balloon when I first saw it, there are tons of those out over the ocean unfortunately, and they'll show up on radar. There was likely a water spout or wind disturbance that was tossing it around and making it look like it was affecting the ocean surface. Then chasing it with a camera and jet wash add other elements of perceived movement.
Pretty sad that you're one of the few very looking at these videos from a logical perspective and digging deep into the data. Based on the release of the video, it makes you wonder if this type of analysis has even been done internally.
Fascinating... This guy is sharp.
NASA gave the same explanation as given in this video in the recent NASA UAP hearing
That rng number is not the distance to the target, its the horziontal distance from the aircraft to the target not taking into account for height difference (as the tpod cant work that out and can only work out where the target is from the aircraft on a 2d map).
How do you know this?
@@MickWest I’m not certain but I’m sure you can take a look into it :)
@@MickWest I’m certainly not doubting your work, I’m just saying that a range on a 2d map to the target makes more sense when avoiding Sam’s for a fighter jet pilot, so in this case the rng could be representing that number but I’m not certain just a thing to consider.
Although I’ve done the calculations and it basically does not change the height of the target but with these values that target would lose about 1000 feet during the lock, so it’s more likely that rng is the direct distance as you have done as the height of the target does not change during the lock (only about 300 feet or so)
@@Sparkles1290 I think it's the "slant range", this was discussed on Metabunk years ago.
I read your original thread on Metabunk, and got dogpiled on Reddit for mentioning it. SO happy you've made this given the current hype.
That should tell you something...
@@zufalllx It tells us there's a lot of idiots on Reddit.
@@ShizukuSeiji A lot. If anyone wanted to ever know the actual number of idiots on the planet, take the number of reddit users and add those from twitter
It's not fair! I wanted to believe that was UFO and you ruined it! :D
How do you find the Pentagon's official statements?
I'm no sure what you are asking. Can you be more specific?
@@MickWest Thank you, at the end of this video, you show a document called the "Clearance request for public release of department of defense." Where do you find that? All I can find is journalists making stuff up. I even went to the department of defense's website, they have nothing with the keywords "UFO" or "tic tac." Some guy I was arguing with claimed all the ridiculous things he was saying came from the pentagon, of course, they were just coming from some journalist, but I was unable to confirm this in our argument.
@@tristunalekzander5608 See this discussion: www.metabunk.org/threads/ttsas-form-dd-1910-for-flir-go-fast-and-gimbal-videos.10702/
I agree. The first time I witnessed this video, I immediately came to the same conclusion: the object is not moving that fast relative to the fighter jet (it may even be moving at a slower speed) and it's not that 'low' not 'near the water' at all. The characteristics of the recording and noting the speed of the a/c on the display, one can immediately see that the object's speed is not that much different from the fighter jet recording it.
someone said these are videos of birds that are XOR onto the image;
when we see that it becomes immediately apparent that is what occurred; At the time the video was "published" we had the area 51 brouha so since it was claimed by an Intelligence Officer is seems to me it just makes a good recruiter video
Right? Incredible how idiotic our Navy personnel are, they can’t even read their own cameras, which is so easy even we can do it with no training. What a bunch of fools.
This explanation has some problems. 1) if object was flying high from the sea surface how there is so much depth of field? Narrow angle optics have very shallow depth of field, now everything is sharp which suggests object is flying low. 2) calculations are based on short clip (distances, camera angles etc), who knows how long it originally is - nothing suggests original video is that short. And if it is much longer parallax explanation of slow moving object will not work because distances would vary a lot which could be seen on sea surface detail and also object size 3) It doesn't explain pilot reactions, only assumes they have bad judgement even though they are highly skilled professionals. Pilots certainly know balloons very well
I suggested the idea that the background is not the sea, but a cloud layer, possibly like this:czcams.com/video/XPkL7t3L6DM/video.html, exactly like the one visible in GIMBAL, which seems to be closely related to this video.
@@leonardocuellar8618 That makes sense but then parallax explanation is incorrect.
@@bekanav I don't think the object is especially sharply focussed and the background, whatever it is, is very blurry.
@@ShizukuSeiji Background indeed looks a bit weird, I can't say it is sea surface but there is not much another possibility. Anyway you can see details in it so I wouldn't say it is blurry.
Object itself is on known distance so it is certainly focused as well as it can be. They even managed to track it.
Yes iy's flawed. The amazing thing is that ...Do you really think that this guy is smarter than the Navy and Nasa scientists? They would have figured simple explanations out along time ago
Mick does a savvy peer review. He is too kind to say that junk science is still junk.
Near 5:00, what are your distance units? The Jet is going 624 ft/s for about 30 seconds, meaning it would travel 18,000 ft (3 nautical miles) over that 30 second period. If the UFO was truly a relatively stationary balloon only 4 nautical miles away, after 30 seconds the Jet should have nearly "passed" the balloon on the jet's left side. Yet over 30 seconds, the camera only pans 12 degrees in pitch and 22 degrees in yaw. I'd expect a much larger camera yaw given these numbers. Additionally it's unclear to me if the camera angles are relative to the structural frame of the plane or, relative to a plane parallel to sea level.
@@AlicanErenKuzu Can you run that test again and maybe upload a video of it running please?
Thanks for good teaching materials for my trigonometry class, @Mick West!
I imagine that made for quite an interesting class!
Ooooh, great idea. Way to make maths fun!
This is a great debunking!
Back in 1998 I saw 3 'triangles' flying in formation. No sound, no lights but if you can imagine looking at a Ferris wheel with just 3 carriages with a 120 degree spacing rotating at about 5rpm then you get the idea. They passed through the constellation Lyra and were the same size as a short hop passenger aircraft flying at 30,000 feet. They ended up stopping, splitting into a single and a pair and flying off in opposite directions. Go figure. When I first saw these three videos I thought nope, the maths just doesn't add up and your analysis proves it. I wish the media (and Blaze!) would stop peddling this stuff.
Thanks Mick! Very interesting.
I bet you can calculate what shoe size I am by the amount of letters I used in this post.
Okay, I'm an instant fan and subscriber. Great work.
I had the same reaction.
Don't be fooled. If there was that much of a speed difference, the jet would cross the path of the object in a few seconds. The video would should the jet crossing the path. That's not what we see.
If you're driving next to another car at 80mph, and you're slowly passing that car, it's a good guess that you're going a few mph faster, right? Now if you're going 80 and they're going 20, you're going to pass them like they're standing still. Which of those situations describes this video?
@@berrywhite1379 neither of those scenarios apply to this instance. You're commenting on a video that literally describes why, in detail.
@@deanjdk the main problem with this video's explanation is that it merely debunks the camera footage that was released. Along with this footage are multiple eyewitness accounts in much more detail that describe phenomena not mentioned in this video, like the way the aircraft seemed to decend and rise, and circle around with the fighter jets, or how they got close to it and it shot off at unfathomable speeds. Does the author of this video assume that the Navy witnesses are just crazy, ignorant, or liars? I'm fine if that's the case, just wish the video would touch on that aspect of the story.
@@MrFlameRad Hi Shai. UFO believers keep holding onto this idea that people in the military are less fallable than the rest of us. However, when Mick interviews them, they literally cannot even follow along with the discussion about the camera footage itself. Again, it's not that they have any actual refutation of Micks analysis, they literally lack the comprehensive ability to follow the technicalities of the conversation. Then, their actual retelling of what we are seeing ON THE CAMERA FOOTAGE does not match what we see on the footage.
I don't ignore it as a possibility (regarding your assessment of the Go Fast video). That said, a few things need be underscored. For one: Graves conveys that the gimbal object shoots off at high speeds and that this is contained within the video, though that portion of the video wasn't released.
Two: Your argument about the Go Fast video is far more convincing than your speculation that the FLIR1 video depicts a jet off in the distance. It's, arguably, misleading to call it the "Nimitz video." People who actually want to maintain objectivity should realize that the tic-tac was seen by two pilots, and two WSO's. And that David Fravor goes into great detail about his encounter with it which encompasses coming within a half mile of it. The FLIR1 video is a video that was later captured after Fravor and the other plane landed. Nevertheless, there is no reason to assume that the FLIR1 video isn't depicting the same object that Fravor, another pilot, and two WSO's saw for a full 5 minutes: All eye balls on the object. Moreover, there is extensive radar corroboration of these tic-tac objects being detected on multiple radars four days prior to the actual first intercept of the tic-tac.
These objects were detected on the SPY-1 radar housed on some of the cruisers as well as the E-2 Hawkeye radar picture from on high. What are the odds of separate radars all picking up anomalous returns coupled with an encounter encompassing two pilots and two WSO's seeing something anomalous? Well, anything is possible. But I would not in a million years place my chips there.
I think it's inevitable that if there is something to UFOs that more and more data will come out from the US Gov. and at a certain point, yes, even the scientific community will accept UFOs in the same way that they ended up accepting meteors.
"there is no reason to assume that the FLIR1 video isn't depicting the same object that Fravor, another pilot, and two WSO's saw for a full 5 minutes"
Why? What reason is there to assume that it IS the same object? It behaves nothing like their description.
@@MickWest That's what's being conveyed by Elizondo, and Fravor. Fravor in particular is the one that saw the thing up close. You're the one making the claim that is, frankly, closer to a conspiracy theory. I'm going with the simple explanation supported by the data. You're contesting the simple explanation. Neither of us were there. Neither of us were part of AATIP, and were privy to the radar returns that purportedly corroborate the tic-tac event. So, in reality, you're the one making the leap. Not me. And, ultimately, your assessment of the tic-tac is pure speculation. You didn't do any mathematical equations to reach your conclusion. None of the witness testimony actually supports your contention. And the radar data almost certainly doesn't either.
@@Postdisclosureworld The FLIR video shows a black peanut shaped blob that does not move. If Fravor is saying it's for sure the same thing as the white Tic-Tac he saw bouncing around like a ping-pong ball, then he's being ridiculous.
@@MickWest I'm sure you're aware of this, Mick, but Fravor literally went on the record and stated that he saw a higher resolution version of the FLIR1 video, and he went to far as to say there were appendages coming out of the object. So, the truth is, he saw a much higher quality version than you and me did. And so your 'blob' characterization does not fit the data when examined in context. Also, Fravor said the tic-tac was bouncing around when he saw it from on high when it was close to the water. Even according to Fravor the flight path of the tic-tac *changed* during the encounter.
@@Postdisclosureworld When did he first mention these appendages?
How do you know he's not accidentally inventing memories based on the compression artifacts in the current video?
So what do you think now about the video? UFO
Clearly it's a UFO, since it's flying and has not been identified. I think it's a balloon, maybe a bird, or something else. It's 100% not fast though. Nor is it close to the water.
started well then you ploted the positional graph
fantastic work and nice clear calculations.
For clarity.....the “Go Fast” video and the “Tic-Tac” video are unrelated. Commander Fravor and 3 other pilots, witnessed something outmaneuver their F-18s.
Or at least they thought they did (or at the very least they SAY they did)
Mick West brilliant assessment.
Mick West must have been some parallax to cause the tic tac weather balloon to move like it did.
@@MickWest how many hours in those jets do you have Mick?
The truth is that this is your bread and butter. You had your mind made up regardless of evidence. You're a joke.
abraham lincoln salty because your ufo is a camera trick ?
Who's here after 60 minutes?
Also I've just read that you also dismissed someone telling you that (classified) congressional hearings have taken place when it has been confirmed... is that true? Did you dismiss that?
I didn't read much into it. Senators seeking more information on a popular topic.
@@MickWest ok thanks... i agree nothing should be dismissed. I have heard that there is better footage. I wonder if we are being kept in the dark.. I know this isn't the tic tac footage but Fravor is convinced at what he saw.
I'm sitting on the fence.
But it is a subject that (should not) be shunned or abused... there are too many cases on the ufo subject that are unsolved.
It was the "Hauling ass" in a mocking way for me hahahahah
I was taken in by the whole tik-tac UFO thingy for a short while, thought it was the best UFO evidence for a long time. Then it all started to unravel. Now this is the video that puts the icing on the cake. Completely shot down and explained. Well done sir.
Not to be rude but it was a blurry smudge, did the pilots "testimony" convince you?
If the thing is only going 40kts, why does the camera track with the object consistently? The jet would cross the path of something going 200 mph slower within a few seconds. But that doesn't happen. The path remains stable. That means the thing must be going about the same speed as the jet.
@@berrywhite1379 - i suspect that is computer technology keeping the camera locked on, and not the unsteady hand of a human
just re-watched the video and am now totally convinced that is a computer tracking... at the 12 second mark it locks onto the target and holds steady from then on
i dunno this for sure, but if the angular field of view is near or less than 1.5 degrees that would be hell for a human to be able to track with steadiness. i doubt any human could
i am not claiming to know that the AFOV was in the vicinity of 1.5 degrees, just that i suspect it based on some of the ranges i have heard
Uh, this isn't the Tic Tac. I don't think it's been "unravelled", either.
now the question is - why would the government spread this bullshit if it is so easy for any random person to debunk it - certainly military people who know how their cameras work should be able to know this is all bullshit. the government clearly wants us distracted with ufo bullshit.
I dream of living in a world with people who think like Mike West, not one where its god this, alien that, looney guru this, homeopathy that.
This video should have millions of views
It would be useful to have an arrow indicating which direction the plane is moving relative to the ground in the video.
I am not sure that would be relevant.
Mick, if the speeds are so different (210 mph by your analysis), how does the jet maintain a straight trajectory with the object? The jet would cross the path of the object in a few seconds if there was really that much of a difference in speed.
Why do you think it's a straight trajectory? Do you mean like, going directly towards it? If that were the case, then there would be no parallax effect which is what caused those guys on the video to think it's "hauling ass." The jet is overtaking it, while the object is ahead, to the left, and below the jet. The video is only a few seconds long, and the range decreases by a mile or so. Did you actually watch the video?
For once it actually is a weather balloon reflecting venus swamp gas. 😁
Well, reflecting the mysterious and inexplicable radar waves being emitted by the plane tracking it anyway.
Excellent video. interesting, informative and worthwhile video.
This is one of the reasons why I've disconnected from television of all forms for the past 23 years. There has been literally nothing worth watching on either free to air, or pay TV.
I'm in the UK and we used to have about 5 terrestrial channels and great quality programmes. After de-regulation we have 100s of channels and they are all almost complete shit. Endless repeats and endless crap aimed at Neanderthals with an attention span of a goldfish with fucking adverts every 10-15 minutes. I loathe - simply loathe adverts. I stopped watching TV completely about 15 years ago. I use an ad-blocker on my browser and haven't see a single ad on the internet in over a decade. Great stuff.
I stopped watching TV pretty much exactly the same time as you. Haven't missed it for a moment.
@@Tom_Quixote If TV went off air for good, I wouldn't notice ..... or give a crap. I've never owned a flat-panel TV.
Are you going to cover the tic tac video too? I want it to be real so bad. Lol, but you've done such a good job with this one I have my doubts now.
See the full playlist. Tic-Tac is the first one
czcams.com/play/PL-4ZqTjKmhn5Qr0tCHkCVnqTx_c0P3O2t.html
.
@Will.J you got burned, kid. grow up. no space aliens for you.
@@greenflagracing7067 What is it?
Steven R I'm gonna doubt Mick's aeronautical experience and go with eye witness account from a decorated pilot with years and years of experience that said he had never seen anything trabel at the speed in which the object was traveling. Watch the videos of the pilot describing what he saw and how it moved .
@@nathandaniel3291 People see what they want to see. Trained pilot or otherwise. Their are always many different factors that attribute to how a retelling of an account plays out.
Its embarrassing that TTSA's whole team couldn't do the math you did, what kind of a lame team are they. all they do is keep replaying it and saying its hauling ass and none of them bothered to do what you did. I hope they see this video.
TTSA is a government disinformation propaganda.. covering military secrets with alien explanation is a very old practise. Do you really think they would choose Delonge as their head if it was legit? hahaha
@@mpaforoufakis no i dont think that at all. i think whoever believes we are being visited by aliens is just silly. i see 0 evidence of real ufos.
His analysis is also wrong. The readout very clearly gives the speed of the object under "V of C". It is travelling well in excess of 200 mph (the system measures in knots).
@@jonjo2598 ooooooo over 200mph, what can it be? its aliens offcourse
@@papinbala It doesn't emit any heat (it is colder than the ocean). This is why the pilots were so surprised by it. Forgot to mention the radar data, we don't have access to it but the system will tell them immediately if the object is a bird or something of about that size.
I have to say that this analysis is explaining this phenomenon and the object is probably flying high. What I cannot figure out is how this camera system is able to produce a still picture from sea level. One could think there would always be some shaking of the picture especially when the zoom is used. And if this is a forward-looking camera there is an impression of quite the opposite. After the target is locked I was thinking (and still am) that the camera is pointing to backwards. And therefore the jet would be flying in the same direction as the object does. But this is not the case if the camera is pointing forward even its angle is a bit down and left.
The angle of the camera relative to the from of the jet is shown at the top. It's around 45° left. The object is moving slowly, so most of the apparent motion is from the jet. The camera system locks onto the object visually and tracks it smoothly using gimballed mirrors for fine rapid adjustments.
@@MickWest Thank you. Now I understand what is going on here. The jet is moving in the opposite direction that the object seems to be flying. I originally
thought that they are both flying above one another. This raises a question: there is a time limit for the phenomenon. When the jet flies over and away from the target the camera cannot follow the object anymore. Maybe the crew noticed this soon after the end but the video/audio unfortunately is cut here before that happens. So the fuss by the audience is completely unnecessary.
Thanks mick for your work here. I subscribed
Mick, Joe Rogan should have you on his podcast but unfortunately he's drunk the cool-aid.
Mick has appeared on JRE twice already.
just see here czcams.com/video/aB8zcAttP1E/video.html
@@HelpMeFindTheseSongs Three times, actually.
Awesome work. I thought the same about the speed. I can say the same about the "Nimitz" vídeo, that movement to the left is really slow. I don't know if you have a video about it, but if the object in the middle is about 15 or 20 pixels and take almost 1 second to leave a screen which have just 100 pixels left to the left side, so the velocity of that thing is pretty average. Sure that you can make a much more detailed video about this. Congrats!
This video is so interesting and educational, it really shows with a bit of math and study you can get a whole picture of reality.
I also find sad how in many subreddits they hate Mick West just because he is the only who actually debunks their theories
THANKYOU MICK" this video confirms my initial belief that the pilots hu rah henry dialogue is totally wrong for this scenario, he,s so over joyed at catching it with the most advance radar,it would have been shocking had he not picked it up, and why was he so amazed by it, it was purely his euphoria that gave this video a distinct smell of bullshit," cheers and thanks again.
i mean its still an unidentified flying object
Where is other part of video?You know this video doesn't finish like this .Did you watch all vtr which was recorded by pilots. And pilot full testimony about object and incident.
Excellent video. Thanks.
The media is writing a narrative off limited information. That it was cut that there's no extra audio or video supplied is red flag in my mind. At no point is the pilot and wizzos conversation directly stating they can't identity what it is.
I can write a scenario just as easy as the media: they're on routine patrol and bored. Pilot picks up radar signal no visual. Gives wizzo coordinates. Wizzo then trains camera on object and excitedly exlaims "whao, got him" once in focus. They chuckle about it then carry on with routine patrol.
THE END
Watch this Airforce pilots take.😉
czcams.com/video/YYLKK6ZlCHc/video.html
Exactly, this is all we got and folks who "want to believe" are jumping to conclusions. They could have identified the object a few seconds later. This is also could be a training video or something, as footage shows certain phenomena related to the hardware in question.
Excellent analysis!
Great analysis.
Did you make the diagram of the paths with the slider in Geogebra?
Yes. See: www.geogebra.org/graphing/ayazsujy
I’m just confused how these pilots and equipment operators, basically the entire US navy and its experts, couldn’t determine what this video did and concluded that these objects are UAPs instead of other distant jets. You’d think they’d see this kinda thing day in and day out…
Yes, that's the only thing mysterious about this whole case. Why are they pretending there is a mystery?
@@Tom_Quixote big egos, I’d assume. Something as simple as parallax illusion tricks their eyes and they get to claim to be an authority on the “impossible physics” they supposedly witnessed. They have clearance to talk about the released video, so they’re going to take their moment in the spotlight. They’re either blinded by their ego, or grifting for the money and fame. I hope it’s the former, but even that makes me sad that the people we’re glorifying as highly specialized are so easily fooled and unwilling to examine the evidence 😒
It’s quite simple. Mick West didn’t take into account what the pilots were actually saying or why they might be surprised by this object. To know that you’d have to know more of the details like radar tracking or things like prior movements and how long it was there. Things that while aren’t shown in this limited video could still have happened.
Bold of you to assume anyone in any armed forces is beyond marginally competant.
Thank you. This is important work.
How do I tag Tom DeLonge?
Yes, it is a balloon that the sensitive flir camera misses on several occasions. The pilots have fun chasing balloons. Now, if it was a balloon, where are the details of it and who did it belong to?
1:23 You have an indicated air speed of 254 knots, on the right side of the screen under the range to target you have a closure speed of 190 knots.
That is not closure speed. There is no closure speed given anywhere. Look at that value - it jumps about from 210 to 200 and also shows values of 180, 170, 190, but always a multiple of 10 so it cannot be closure speed.
@@ShizukuSeiji 190vc is closure rate. The pod laser is not turned on so its using the computer to calc the distance and vc closure speed.
How comforting to be in the 21st century where the average education of a public voice has gotten so high you'll stumble across people and videos like these. Thanks for the cool breakdown and analysis.
@Will.J What about his analysis is incorrect? With specifics please.
@Tiberius I'mserious Dear oh dear. Decades of too much lead in the air, food and water and lack of education, allows anyone with no maths, and a need to be superstitious and believe, to discredit those who can still think.
Bully on you for for doing the mathematics! Very informative. I think I would have pulled out Blender and just plugged the numbers in ;)
3 years ago and same wrong interpretation still repeated in media. Must be frustrating to be Mick.
I noticed that none of your critics respond to your calculations other than the guy whose math seems to be wrong.