Jump to content

Pentagon releases "official" UFO video.

Nightside

By Nightside
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

Nightside

Nightside

Posted
Posted

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/head-of-pentagons-secret-ufo-office-sought-to-make-evidence-public/2017/12/16/90bcb7cc-e2b2-11e7-8679-a9728984779c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_ufos-750pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.e829e40c9137

Pentagon releases "official" UFO video.

What do you think it could be?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDE

DDE

Posted
Posted

@wumpus, what have we here?

https://youtu.be/F86LW0udkVY?t=43

 

@Nightside, the clip is cut annoyingly short, but this seems to have A LOT of glare so the actual outline of the object is disguised quite thoroughly. It looks like the object is static relative to a jet flying by, and the 'rotation' has Apollo LM-like jerks that are uncharacteristic of a dense aircraft.

Anyone willing to do the trig based on airspeed and angle change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PB666

PB666

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Nightside said:

 

Pentagon releases "official" UFO video.

What do you think it could be?

 

120 kts at FL250 would be roughly equivalent of flying 75 (86.35 mph) IOW flying against an 86.35 head wind.

Just about any plane or craft that can travel at FL250 is also capable of traveling against an 86.35 head wind, except solar powered AC which use huge wing area. Its not an exceptional speed and could easily be done by an earth made drone. Since the pilots did not give a  target relative speed at horizontal AoA = 0 its hard to estimate UAS's speed. The IR does not paint unpowered wings, just heat, so that if the wings are ambient they would be invisible on IR. One problem in the IR the heat of the craft is blinding out the heat around the craft, so not easy to see detail. You can see a heat plume emanating from rear that changes angle just before and as the UAS turns.
This says the UAS is a mass reaction propulsion, not some magic fairy dust vehicle. So the question is what is keeping it aloft.

1. Momentum, it could be rocket based viewed close to the top of its trajectory.
2. Center based jet engine . . . .a craft that moves air from top to bottom but expels heat out the back end.
3. Wings that are invisible to IR.

The second issue is turning, Russian jet aircraft are capable of turning as high as 60' AoA so this is not an out-of-this-world manuever. Just you would not expect it around Raytheon proving grounds. In fact if you were painting a Russian jet with IR and zeroing on his position, its likely it would turn up as to increase your relative velocity to his and to bring his craft behind yours.

I bet this is a drone used for testing IR, proprietary equipment.

There's an assumption that aircraft have to be aerodynamic and have high glide ratios. While its desired if you want to fly from New York to Singapore non-stop, its not necessary to get to 25,000 feet or travel and any moderate speed. The problem with commercial aircraft is they are loaded with fuel, and with military aircraft loaded with equipment, ammo, and bombs. Military aircraft also have to fight drag caused by non optimal wing shape (required to get them past mach speed and manuever) believe it or not, this is what creates the speed requirment for lift off and landing. For example a fully loaded 747 has a rotation speed around 170 kts (almost half its weight is fuel), but on the other hand when its nearly empty it glides better than just about any commercial aircraft ever flown. The weight argument becomes a real bugger when talking about commercial aircraft like the Concorde, which even under the best circumstances cannot land at Vr, and must dump most of its fuel to land in an emergency (the Concorde should never have been allowed to transport civilians). But the reason for that is the plane was designed to travel far at Mach 2.0. If you remove flying above M 0.7 and over 100 miles then you create a wide range of scenarios for AC design.

If you remove the payload from a craft, put in a reasonable small jet engine, hold IAS below 140kts (IAS) or M=0.8, Fatten up the wings to get more lift, you could have some pretty crazy looking stuff as long as you don't encroach on Mach speed. The problem with crazy looking stuff is that close to Mach speed, the crazier the stuff, the lower the speed Mach effects will be encountered. So it would be kind of dumb to have a large parabolic mirror or radio telescope on the leading edge of the aircraft.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDE

DDE

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, PB666 said:

The IR does not paint unpowered wings, just heat, so that if the wings are ambient they would be invisible on IR.

Depends on type of IR, not sure whch frequencies ATFLIR can manage.

2 minutes ago, PB666 said:

The second issue is turning, Russian jet aircraft are capable of turning as high as 60' AoA so this is not an out-of-this-world manuever.

The lack of context for the footage makes it all the more confusing. It could be any range of accidental 'aircraft' or deliberate E-war mindfrakkery.

Also, speaking of crazy AoA,

http://i.imgur.com/O2UNP7U.gifv

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PB666

PB666

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, DDE said:

Depends on type of IR, not sure whch frequencies ATFLIR can manage.

The lack of context for the footage makes it all the more confusing. It could be any range of accidental 'aircraft' or deliberate E-war mindfrakkery.

Also, speaking of crazy AoA,

http://i.imgur.com/O2UNP7U.gifv

Fun videos, although I would be totally sea-sick if I was on that craft.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nuke

Nuke

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, PB666 said:

Fun videos, although I would be totally sea-sick if I was on that craft.

 

the motion there is just from the targeting pod. which tracks the target. the plane is just turning slowly (20 degree bank), but the targeting pod is zoomed in and tracking the object and the result is rather nauseating. try doing the same thing with the pod in the bd weapons mod. 

Edited by Nuke
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChrisSpace

ChrisSpace

Posted
Posted
On December 17, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Nightside said:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/head-of-pentagons-secret-ufo-office-sought-to-make-evidence-public/2017/12/16/90bcb7cc-e2b2-11e7-8679-a9728984779c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_ufos-750pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.e829e40c9137

Pentagon releases "official" UFO video.

What do you think it could be?

A distraction.

[link snipped by moderation]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YNM

YNM

Posted
Posted (edited)

Looks like dead/hot pixels...

Also, I'm surprised if it's anything truly worthy. Something that's really "skunk" would probably stay massively under cover. Alternatively, this is the cover (like that "NASA" U-2).

Edited by YNM
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...