Pentagon UFO Study - Media Monitoring

[Realm]

Meanwhile, Mick from metabunk is now saying the "true air speed" is the value we need and therefore the object couldn't have been a bird.

My calculations used TAS=true air speed. And his last comment there regarding TAS correction seems to be "Indicating the object is flying away from the jet at around 20 knots". Using the TAS speed instead of CAS just reduces the speed of the bird, making it just more likely. I did a similar correction to my earlier more coarse calculations, and the results were similar.

I did some googling for average speeds of an albatross, and here are the first results I found:

"Albatrosses reach average speeds of 36 mph, he said, but dynamic soaring would allow them to fly much faster if the high speeds didn’t cause excessive force on their wings."
A Robotic Albatross?

"Speeds of 50-60 kph were common: one of their birds maintained an average speed of 50 kph over 800 kilometers. (Pierre Jouventin and Henri Weimerskirch working with breeding wanderers at the Crozets, reported 80 kph as the typical average speed of wanderer commuting to its feeding grounds.)"
Albatrosses

"Satellite tracking data indicate that wandering albatrosses can cover 15,000 kilometers (9,300 miles) between visits to feed their chicks, reaching speeds of 80 kilometers (50 miles) per hour. High speeds over long distances are their specialty. One bird was observed to travel 808 kilometers (502 miles) at an average speed of 56 kilometers (35 miles) per hour."
Enhanced Essentials of Oceanography

Not a bad match to the average speed of 60 km/h=38 mph I just calculated for Albert .

 

[SRL+]

It’s simply Elizondo & TTSA playing games when Elizondo states they expect the public to figure out these questionable clips, inasmuch, they already know, or, really don’t give a crap as to their true nature. This reminds me of the RSRG (Roswell Slides Research Group) in their debunking of an alien that in truth was a mummified child, whereas, in this saga, it’s a balloon, possibly a bird, another as the heat signature of a jet, and the breath mint(?).
By now, it should be painfully obvious these short clips are nowhere close to providing unassailable evidence of alien visitation i.e., disclosure.

Then again, you have The Paracast’s latest guest, (Robert Schroeder), firmly convinced in that thousands of alien civilizations are visiting the Earth @ this very moment.

 

[Realm]

whereas, in this saga, it’s a balloon, possibly a bird, another as the heat signature of a jet

Albert might be a bit on the heavier side for a bird, but calling him a balloon is just rude!

Speaking of linking him to another heat signature (the Gimbal clip), pretty much everything seems to point now to these being parts of the same clip from the same flight of the same jet and crew, separated by less than 20 minutes:
Buckle up boys- you're about to get learnt. A little insight into our recent UFO sightings from 2004 and 2015. • r/ConspiracyII

Notice how in addition to that code and similar sounding pilots and the fact that both have been reported to be from the East Coast from 2015, the jet is flying at the same altitude and close to the same speed on these clips.

That means these clips provide some additional context to each other, which is not good for their credibility. We might also get some additional information about the combined weather conditions. But then again, I don't think there's much point anymore.

One particularly interesting thing is that the Albert event happened before the Gimbal one, so if they were already that excited about a bird, it's not surprising if they were just ecstatic if they saw an actual jet or a drone!

I think it's time to repeat the following. This song is dedicated to TTSA:

"Hey, mister lightman, you gotta turn those lights way down man"

 

[MrBeliever]

I have to be honest, I don't know how we keep going from tangential details about the video to "they're lying to us and this video is not what they claim." This is pure paranoia in the absence of a true smoking gun...

 

[SRL+]

Albert might be a bit on the heavier side for a bird, but calling him a balloon is just rude!

Please allow me to clarify; i.e., the party balloon Christopher Mellon presented as a UFO, and not Albert, presented as a form of seafowl.

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

Albert might be a bit on the heavier side for a bird, but calling him a balloon is just rude!

Speaking of linking him to another heat signature (the Gimbal clip), pretty much everything seems to point now to these being parts of the same clip from the same flight of the same jet and crew, separated by less than 20 minutes:
Buckle up boys- you're about to get learnt. A little insight into our recent UFO sightings from 2004 and 2015. • r/ConspiracyII

Notice how in addition to that code and similar sounding pilots and the fact that both have been reported to be from the East Coast from 2015, the jet is flying at the same altitude and close to the same speed on these clips.

That means these clips provide some additional context to each other, which is not good for their credibility. We might also get some additional information about the combined weather conditions. But then again, I don't think there's much point anymore.

One particularly interesting thing is that the Albert event happened before the Gimbal one, so if they were already that excited about a bird, it's not surprising if they were just ecstatic if they saw an actual jet or a drone!

I think it's time to repeat the following. This song is dedicated to TTSA:

"Hey, mister lightman, you gotta turn those lights way down man"

Well Brother @Realm it looks like your calculations are a big hit over at Metabunk. Since I posted your Paracast link to Wingman Albert Ross, a meticulous new Metabunker calling himself Kaen has redone his own calculations, using TAS instead of his earlier CAS and come up with a result that tallies very closely with yours. It seems the only argument he has with you is calling the bird Albert because he calls his bird Bernie. It’s much easier to calculate the altitude than the speed, but even your uncertainty in Albert’s speed is only 14%.

"GO FAST" Footage from Tom DeLonge's To The Stars Academy. Bird?

I redid my calculations using TAS instead of CAS and get almost the same results, though I think it’s Bernie:

Average object altitude: 4022 m (instead of 4039)
Average object speed: 38 knots (instead of 33 knots)

 

[Realm]

Well Brother @Realm it looks like your calculations are a big hit over at Metabunk. Since I posted your Paracast link to Wingman Albert Ross, a meticulous new Metabunker calling himself Kaen has redone his own calculations, using TAS instead of his earlier CAS and come up with a result that tallies very closely with yours. It seems the only argument he has with you is calling the bird Albert because he calls his bird Bernie. It’s much easier to calculate the altitude than the speed, but even your uncertainty in Albert’s speed is only 14%.

"GO FAST" Footage from Tom DeLonge's To The Stars Academy. Bird?

I redid my calculations using TAS instead of CAS and get almost the same results, though I think it’s Bernie:

Average object altitude: 4022 m (instead of 4039)
Average object speed: 38 knots (instead of 33 knots)

Seems like he hasn't actually calculated to what direction Albert is going but just assumes it's parallel to the jet (according to my spreadsheet, it almost is, only some 4 degree angle towards left from the initial direction of the jet at 233 second mark) and calculates the relative speeds Albert and the jet have between them. Those seem to be the sort of crude calculations I did on the first page of this thread on Saturday. That altitude also matches the one I calculated back then based on the best two points of data.

The difference with my current spreadsheet is that it doesn't make assumptions of Albert's direction but actually calculates where he is going and at what speed. Also the altitude estimate is now based and matched against all the individual data points, instead of just two or averages. And by linking the data in various ways, as I mentioned before, my angle and rangefinder distance estimates actually use one or two additional fractional digits as compared to those that are simply available on the display in the video.

But it's good to see others get similar results, which brings more confidence my calculations are on the right track. The reason I did these more detailed calculations is exactly because the lack of precision on the values from the video, which causes some risk that some factors that are not properly handled would skew the results significantly, out of the bird speed territory for example. But so far everything checks out.

So far none of them have commented that screenshot of Albert. I hope they get interested in that as well, as I would like to see someone trying to extract that sort of data from the video in more detail, as that could ultimately remove any doubt that what we are seeing is just Albert.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Here's what my spreadsheet just spit out:


I haven't had the time to check the calculations properly yet, but at least it seems to pass some basic sanity checks, and seems to be a pretty good match to the earlier more coarse calculations that were done differently. The axes show distances in meters, as measured from the location and direction of the plane at 233 second mark of the video.

I collected all the available data from the video from 233s to 254s, so basically for all that time the rangefinder gave distance estimates. The problem was that the angles and distances shown in the video do not have enough precision for calculating the exact positions of Albert, who is moving too slowly and too far away relative to the rounding errors. When I did this with those raw numbers, Albert was moving within that same area, but zigzagging around due to the precision errors. I used several tricks to minimize those errors, but that still left Albert a bit jiggly path. That's just due to precision, my dear friend Albert is not a drunk flier!

The initial values I used varied Albert's flight altitude by close to a hundred meters or so, but that's unlikely to be real. I think it's reasonable to assume he was more likely to fly more or less level, so I put him at constant altitude, for which I believe I already had good estimates and reasoning in my original calculations on the first page. Those put him at 4020m. I fine-tuned that a bit and found that an altitude of 4039m resulted in correct rounded results for the calculated angles for all the steps as compared to the video. Even minor differences caused some of them to be rounded to the next number, so I think the altitude is actually pretty accurate (within instrument precision and actual altitude variations and so on). That way I could calculate the vertical camera angles from the altitude and rangefinder distances, which helped me to interpolate more accurate values for the distances (basically adding a digit or even two of precision), which is the most significant variable here.

In the video, the angles and distance estimates happen to change at a couple of points at more or less the exact same time the seconds change, meaning those values would most likely be just between the rounded numbers the display shows, and I used those between numbers moments as more accurate reference points for interpolating and fine-tuning the rest. I tweaked the numbers to higher precision so that they are all rounded correctly as compared to the video, and worked together so that there were no other similar rounding errors. I also used the rangefinder closing velocities to match the interpolated distance values, beginning with such reference points.

I calculated plane turn rates from the banking angles measured from the video according to the equation I mentioned before. I don't know how accurate they are for that type of jet, but hopefully close enough. I used the TAS speed for the jet, according to the calculator here:
Aviation Calculator

Remember that it also doesn't take winds into account. The absolute ground speeds or wind speeds relative to the ground do not really matter that much, but we basically just have to assume the winds were about the same for the altitudes of the jet and Albert, as I don't think we can get that information anywhere. If they weren't, the calculations would still be otherwise correct as they are measuring relative distances and speeds, but Albert just might have needed to do more or less work for achieving his relative speed than the figures indicate. If the winds were not too significant, it seems Albert wasn't flying close to his maximums but was just having a good time, cruising comfortably somewhere close to 60km/h=38mph, away from the nasty jet that was trailing behind, and then some creep hit his eye with a laser rangefinder .

Note for those who haven't read my earlier messages: that pic of Albert above in the chart is an actual enlarged screenshot of him from the Washington Post video here:
Perspective | The military keeps encountering UFOs. Why doesn’t the Pentagon care?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but your calculation is essentially saying that that apparently huge speed of the UFO relative to the sea waves in the background is caused by fast relative motion of the F-18 plane, not by speed of the UFO itself. According to your calculation UFO is moving at approximately same speed as an albatross.

Is that right?

 

[MrBeliever]

Problems I see:

- The speed of sound used in the calculation assumes an "American Standard" temperature of -34.5 °C at 25,000 ft. Not only does the actual temperature that day matter, the moisture levels in the air matter too; there is a synergy between the two. We do not have any of that data, but it's probably pretty warm and moist off the coast of Florida. Then again, maybe it's winter. Margin of error here: Probably +/- 30 knots.

- People are calculating "True Air Speed" from the CAS using some fixed values. Let me remind you the CAS is based on local air flow speed given by sensors on the aircraft. At the same "absolute linear speed," the CAS will read higher when going against the wind, and lower when getting carried by the wind. At what point does the CAS->TAS conversion account for wind, which we have absolutely no data on? That never happens. Another margin of error of potentially +/- 200 knots, because who knows how much wind there was that day? The pilot in the Gimbal video clearly states "120 knots to the West" at the same altitude, so the actual speed difference could be huge.

I'm sorry, but if the speed you're trying to calculate is a fraction of your margin of error, you're probably better off just guessing.

 

[Realm]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but your calculation is essentially saying that that apparently huge speed of the UFO relative to the sea waves in the background is caused by fast relative motion of the F-18 plane, not by speed of the UFO itself. According to your calculation UFO is moving at approximately same speed as an albatross.

Is that right?

That's right. The jet is at an altitude of 7 kilometers, looking at their target (Albert) at an altitude of 4 kilometers, so it's actually closer to the jet than water. So basically even a stationary target would seem to move as fast or faster than the jet (depending on the viewing angle of course) against the ocean. Note that even if you ignore all the more calculated calculations, there's no question the object is actually high up, not close to the water as TTSA claimed. It's very easy to see from the values shown in the video. At the very end for example the rangefinder shows that the distance to the target is 6.1km , and at the same time the plane is at 7km, so even if they were looking straight down (and they are not), it still wouldn't be near the water.

My calculations resulted a speed of 60km/h=38mph, which is pretty much an exact match for the average flight speed of albatrosses, and only about half of their maximum speeds.

 

[withoutlimits09]

This object is not a bird. Firstly, it is very rare to see a lone bird flying over the open ocean, as they routinely flock together to avoid natural predators. If this object were a bird, you would at least see more than one. Moreover, an Albatross has a very unique flight pattern that allows it fly long distances, and it involves flying low to the water (not a 4k feet) and executing a looping motion to generate lift. That very obvious flight motion is not seen in this video.

 

[Realm]

- The speed of sound used in the calculation assumes an "American Standard" temperature of -34.5 °C at 25,000 ft. Not only does the actual temperature that day matter, the moisture levels in the air matter too; there is a synergy between the two. We do not have any of that data, but it's probably pretty warm and moist off the coast of Florida. Then again, maybe it's winter. Margin of error here: Probably +/- 30 knots.

Even your maximum margins would keep it within albatross speeds.

At what point does the CAS->TAS conversion account for wind, which we have absolutely no data on? That never happens. Another margin of error of potentially +/- 200 knots, because who knows how much wind there was that day? The pilot in the Gimbal video clearly states "120 knots to the West" at the same altitude, so the actual speed difference could be huge.

And since we are calculating relative speeds, absolute wind speeds do not matter, as I have repeatedly stated before, only their relative differences at 7km and 4km.

That statement about the wind is actually one of those interesting bits of information I mentioned before that could be of use from one clip to another, since they happened less than 20 minutes apart. But since we don't have compass headings or any info of speeds at 4km, that doesn't really help much.

I'm sorry, but if the speed you're trying to calculate is a fraction of your margin of error, you're probably better off just guessing.

It's pretty obvious you don't understand what is being calculated, and don't really want to have explanations for these events, but just to believe they saw something special. The fact is, the video is only showing a relatively slow object at high altitude, and it doesn't do anything interesting. If we disregard that it actually looks like a bird, it could as well be a number of other things, balloons and such. It's very far from any sort of evidence of something extraordinary.

 

[Realm]

This object is not a bird. Firstly, it is very rare to see a lone bird flying over the open ocean, as they routinely flock together to avoid natural predators. If this object were a bird, you would at least see more than one. Moreover, an Albatross has a very unique flight pattern that allows it fly long distances, and it involves flying low to the water (not a 4k feet) and executing a looping motion to generate lift. That very obvious flight motion is not seen in this video.

The maximum flying altitude is one of the things I tried to google earlier but didn't find immediately. It would be actually an interesting piece of information, as it could indicate another species. But otherwise you are just making illogical conclusions how the flight characteristics of one bird would eliminate the overall possibility of a bird, and as if albatrosses would be constantly looping.

A quick googling indicates albatrosses tend to fly quite low, as you said, so it seems it's more likely to be some other species. I was actually suspecting that earlier based on how it seems to be flapping quite rapidly in the video. I guess it's time to try to look at some lists of large seabirds, just for the fun of it. Since the speed is so slow, that doesn't put much restriction on the species, so flying above the ocean at an altitude of 4km is probably the best indicator.

 

[MrBeliever]

It could also be an albatross actually flying a glider.

You know, I have access to the same data everyone else does, but it pains me to watch the people at metabunk take one big assumption, mash it into another big assumption, and say "right down the middle here, this velocity means this is a bird." Right now, they're trying to reconcile an impossible result with an assumption that the object is static, and trying to see how that nonsense can be mixed into the other graph where the velocity of the plane and its heading relative to the object's path are unknown, to somehow produce a number that will prove the object is a bird... I mean... Come on.

 

[Realm]

You know, I have access to the same data everyone else does, but it pains me to watch the people at metabunk take one big assumption, mash it into another big assumption, and say "right down the middle here, this velocity means this is a bird." Right now, they're trying to reconcile an impossible result with an assumption that the object is static, and trying to see how that nonsense can be mixed into the other graph where the velocity of the plane and its heading relative to the object's path are unknown, to somehow produce a number that will prove the object is a bird... I mean... Come on.

I took a look at what they are doing there, and I'm also surprised they are still working so hard on basic trigonometry. I thought they and Mick especially already had quite a lot of practice on similar analyses.

Nevertheless, it only takes very simple calculations to show the claims TTSA is making of low altitude and high speed are just plain wrong.

 

[DROBNJAK]

That's right. The jet is at an altitude of 7 kilometers, looking at their target (Albert) at an altitude of 4 kilometers, so it's actually closer to the jet than water. So basically even a stationary target would seem to move as fast or faster than the jet (depending on the viewing angle of course) against the ocean. Note that even if you ignore all the more calculated calculations, there's no question the object is actually high up, not close to the water as TTSA claimed. It's very easy to see from the values shown in the video. At the very end for example the rangefinder shows that the distance to the target is 6.1km , and at the same time the plane is at 7km, so even if they were looking straight down (and they are not), it still wouldn't be near the water.

My calculations resulted a speed of 60km/h=38mph, which is pretty much an exact match for the average flight speed of albatrosses, and only about half of their maximum speeds.

Well, one can see that HUD is showing range to target of 3.5 (I guess that's miles), which is approximately half-a-way to the sea waves. Practically, point of view is nearly rotating around the target, which is close to center. That makes target seem to be moving, although it is nearly stationary.

Good work at spotting that!

 

[DROBNJAK]

This object is not a bird. Firstly, it is very rare to see a lone bird flying over the open ocean, as they routinely flock together to avoid natural predators. If this object were a bird, you would at least see more than one. Moreover, an Albatross has a very unique flight pattern that allows it fly long distances, and it involves flying low to the water (not a 4k feet) and executing a looping motion to generate lift. That very obvious flight motion is not seen in this video.

Yeah, you are right. Its hard to imagine albatross flying 3 miles up in the air. Plus it's questionable if radar would be able to lock on a big bird?

 

[SRL+]

Moreover, an Albatross has a very unique flight pattern that allows it fly long distances, and it involves flying low to the water (not a 4k feet) and executing a looping motion to generate lift

Lol…, it’s entirely possible & probably common for an albatross to ascend beyond 16,000 feet (3+ mi). While rarely seen on land, these amazing seabirds are known to travel over 10,000 miles without landing. They may sleep while in flight. Additionally, the longer the wingspan of these seabirds the higher altitude achieved. It is simply nonsense to suggest an albatross would fly completely over open sea @ minimal altitudes, while not taking advantage of favorable wind patterns & weather conditions in soaring higher when weather conditions are unfavorable @ lower altitudes.

Top 10 bird flight altitudes:

Andean Condor- 15,000 ft. approx. 3 mi.

White Stork- 16,000 ft. approx. 3 mi.

Bar-tailed Godwit- 20,000 ft. approx. 4 mi.

Mallard- 21,000 ft. approx. 4 mi

Bearded Vulture- 24,000 ft. approx. 4+ mi.

Alpine Chough- 26,000 ft. approx. 5+ mi.

Whooper Swan- 27,000 ft. approx. 5+ mi.

Bar-headed Goose- 29,000 ft. approx. 6- mi.

Common Crane- 33,000 ft. approx. 6+ mi.

Ruppell’s Vulture- 37,000 ft. approx. 7+ mi.

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

Yeah, you are right. Its hard to imagine albatross flying 3 miles up in the air. Plus it's questionable if radar would be able to lock on a big bird?

Let us now pay tribute to the bird kingdom and appreciate what all our fine feathered brethren and sistern can accomplish while soaring above the ground.

Here is a gallery of 9 Birds that set different kinds of records for their amazing flights. Albert the Albatross makes the list because of his fastest horizontal speed of close to 80 mph, while Ruppell’s Griffon vulture can fly as high as 37,000 feet = 7 miles high

Fastest flier in horizontal flight: Grey-headed albatross
9 birds that set records for their amazing flights

Highest flier: Ruppell's griffon vulture
9 birds that set records for their amazing flights

But I am quite baffled by your last sentence, Brother @DROBNJAK. You are quite correct that radar would not be able to lock in on a big bird, but do you not understand that the TTSA video we are discussing is not a radar image, but an Infra-Red image which is quite capable of locking in on a big bird.

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

Lol…, it’s entirely possible & probably common for an albatross to ascend beyond 16,000 feet (3+ mi). While rarely seen on land, these amazing seabirds are known to travel over 10,000 miles without landing. They may sleep while in flight. Additionally, the longer the wingspan of these seabirds the higher altitude achieved. It is simply nonsense to suggest an albatross would fly completely over open sea @ minimal altitudes, while not taking advantage of favorable wind patterns & weather conditions in soaring higher.

Top 10 bird flight altitudes:

Andean Condor- 15,000 ft. approx. 3 mi.

White Stork- 16,000 ft. approx. 3 mi.

Bar-tailed Godwit- 20,000 ft. approx. 4 mi.

Mallard- 21,000 ft. approx. 4 mi

Bearded Vulture- 24,000 ft. approx. 4+ mi.

Alpine Chough- 26,000 ft. approx. 5+ mi.

Whooper Swan- 27,000 ft. approx. 5+ mi.

Bar-headed Goose- 29,000 ft. approx. 6- mi.

Common Crane- 33,000 ft. approx. 6+ mi.

Ruppell’s Vulture- 37,000 ft. approx. 7+ mi.

Why, Brother @S.R.L. , do you realize the implications of your bird list?

Given that the F-18 jet was flying at 25,000 feet, then it is quite possible that the Alpine Clough, the Whooper Swan, the Barheaded Goose, the common Crane and Ruppelt’s Griffon Vulture are all quite capable of opening up their Poo Poo Butt*** “bombay doors” and splattering down on the F-18 with their natural wastes.

***NOTE: Please do not take offense at my language here because I am paying tribute to Tom DeLonge and his band Blink182 who named their company in 1998 as Poo Poo Butt Inc. for the sole reason of being offensive.

SOURCE:

https://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Punks-go-beyond-joking-around-246287.php

And they named their company Poo Poo Butt Inc. "We did it because it was the most immature, dumbest thing ever," DeLonge said. "We thought it would be funny to have our accountants, managers and attorneys having to say that over the phone every day. "We were always like, 'Let's have fun doing what we do and fuck everybody else. It doesn't matter what impressions we leave. It doesn't matter how many people get offended,'

=======

Seems like the same attitude holds true today with TTSA if you dare question anything about them and their cultic mission.