<https://www.dvidshub.net/video/885193/western-us-objects>

ObSF: "The Silly Season" (Kornbluth)

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:09:47 PM UTC-4, Don wrote:
> <https://www.dvidshub.net/video/885193/western-us-objects>
>
> ObSF: "The Silly Season" (Kornbluth)

I'm not a UFO believer, but there's some curious things here I'd like to
see explained further.

I'm restricting myself to the first clip.

It shows a night sky. Fixed stars are visible, in stable positions in the frame.
At one point what is clearly a jet plane crosses left to right near the bottom
of the image - a contrail is clearly visible.

The mystery is 3 more dots, halfway down the screen, which move left and right
in synchrony.

If they're aircraft, why isn't the plane near the bottom affected in the same way?

The reasonable assumption is that they're something closer to the camera, probably
reflections related to 'lens flare'.

The unreasonable assumption is that they're 3 flying saucers flying in formation.

The explanation given is that they're distant commercial aircraft. But that doesn't
gibe with the movements of the jet at the bottom, nor their movement across the
fixed starfield.

So, I'd like a better explanation.

pt

On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 11:15:37 -0700, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:09:47 PM UTC-4, Don wrote:
>> <https://www.dvidshub.net/video/885193/western-us-objects>
>>
>> ObSF: "The Silly Season" (Kornbluth)
>
> I'm not a UFO believer, but there's some curious things here I'd like to
> see explained further.
>
> I'm restricting myself to the first clip.
>
> It shows a night sky. Fixed stars are visible, in stable positions in
> the frame. At one point what is clearly a jet plane crosses left to
> right near the bottom of the image - a contrail is clearly visible.
>
> The mystery is 3 more dots, halfway down the screen, which move left and
> right in synchrony.
>
> If they're aircraft, why isn't the plane near the bottom affected in the
> same way?
>
> The reasonable assumption is that they're something closer to the
> camera, probably reflections related to 'lens flare'.
>
> The unreasonable assumption is that they're 3 flying saucers flying in
> formation.
>
> The explanation given is that they're distant commercial aircraft. But
> that doesn't gibe with the movements of the jet at the bottom, nor their
> movement across the fixed starfield.
>
> So, I'd like a better explanation.
>
> pt

After quite a bit of time studying the "flying saucer" era
in newspaper archives I've developed two simple rules for
interpreting UFO stories (or anything else in the news):
1. If the story states (or implies) that the laws of physics
are being defied, the story must be false.
2. Anything moving on a screen, from zoetrope to smartphone,
is potentially a magic trick.

On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 11:15:37 -0700, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:09:47 PM UTC-4, Don wrote:
>> <https://www.dvidshub.net/video/885193/western-us-objects>
>>
>> ObSF: "The Silly Season" (Kornbluth)
>
> I'm not a UFO believer, but there's some curious things here I'd like to
> see explained further.
>
> I'm restricting myself to the first clip.
>
> It shows a night sky. Fixed stars are visible, in stable positions in
> the frame. At one point what is clearly a jet plane crosses left to
> right near the bottom of the image - a contrail is clearly visible.
>
> The mystery is 3 more dots, halfway down the screen, which move left and
> right in synchrony.
>
> If they're aircraft, why isn't the plane near the bottom affected in the
> same way?
>
> The reasonable assumption is that they're something closer to the
> camera, probably reflections related to 'lens flare'.
>
> The unreasonable assumption is that they're 3 flying saucers flying in
> formation.
>
> The explanation given is that they're distant commercial aircraft. But
> that doesn't gibe with the movements of the jet at the bottom, nor their
> movement across the fixed starfield.
>
> So, I'd like a better explanation.
>
> pt

Now that I've had a chance to view the video on a Windows
machine with the necessary video codecs installed, I can see that
it's the /clouds/ vs the fixed star field that's the giveaway
that the video's a fake. You have to watch it beyond the first
minute, after which there are clouds in the foreground. They
occasionally jitter up or down, implying a hand-held camera.
Except that the starry background doesn't jitter with them.

Charles Packer wrote:
> pete wrote:
>> Don wrote:
>>>
>>> <https://www.dvidshub.net/video/885193/western-us-objects>
>>>
>>> ObSF: "The Silly Season" (Kornbluth)
>>
>> I'm not a UFO believer, but there's some curious things here I'd like to
>> see explained further.
>>
>> I'm restricting myself to the first clip.
>>
>> It shows a night sky. Fixed stars are visible, in stable positions in
>> the frame. At one point what is clearly a jet plane crosses left to
>> right near the bottom of the image - a contrail is clearly visible.
>>
>> The mystery is 3 more dots, halfway down the screen, which move left and
>> right in synchrony.
>>
>> If they're aircraft, why isn't the plane near the bottom affected in the
>> same way?
>>
>> The reasonable assumption is that they're something closer to the
>> camera, probably reflections related to 'lens flare'.
>>
>> The unreasonable assumption is that they're 3 flying saucers flying in
>> formation.
>>
>> The explanation given is that they're distant commercial aircraft. But
>> that doesn't gibe with the movements of the jet at the bottom, nor their
>> movement across the fixed starfield.
>>
>> So, I'd like a better explanation.
>
> Now that I've had a chance to view the video on a Windows
> machine with the necessary video codecs installed, I can see that
> it's the /clouds/ vs the fixed star field that's the giveaway
> that the video's a fake. You have to watch it beyond the first
> minute, after which there are clouds in the foreground. They
> occasionally jitter up or down, implying a hand-held camera.
> Except that the starry background doesn't jitter with them.

The US Air Force and NASA's newest nomenclature for UFOs is Unidentified
Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). Allow me to highlight how the URL above links
to official US government work product. It leaves a lot to the
imagination. And it ends with an authorized augural assessment, a data
driven denouement, so to speak:

Analysis of the full motion video, combined with commercial flight
data in the region, led AARO to assess that the objects were three
separate commercial aircraft flying at a great distance from the
infrared sensor. The radar tracks for commercial aircraft aligned
with the objects, which were only seen as small dots due to their
significant distance from the sensor.

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.

On Sat, 02 Sep 2023 15:04:33 +0000, Don wrote:

> Charles Packer wrote:
>> pete wrote:
>>> Don wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.dvidshub.net/video/885193/western-us-objects>
>>>>
>>>> ObSF: "The Silly Season" (Kornbluth)
>>>
>>> I'm not a UFO believer, but there's some curious things here I'd like
>>> to see explained further.
>>>
>>> I'm restricting myself to the first clip.
>>>
>>> It shows a night sky. Fixed stars are visible, in stable positions in
>>> the frame. At one point what is clearly a jet plane crosses left to
>>> right near the bottom of the image - a contrail is clearly visible.
>>>
>>> The mystery is 3 more dots, halfway down the screen, which move left
>>> and right in synchrony.
>>>
>>> If they're aircraft, why isn't the plane near the bottom affected in
>>> the same way?
>>>
>>> The reasonable assumption is that they're something closer to the
>>> camera, probably reflections related to 'lens flare'.
>>>
>>> The unreasonable assumption is that they're 3 flying saucers flying in
>>> formation.
>>>
>>> The explanation given is that they're distant commercial aircraft. But
>>> that doesn't gibe with the movements of the jet at the bottom, nor
>>> their movement across the fixed starfield.
>>>
>>> So, I'd like a better explanation.
>>
>> Now that I've had a chance to view the video on a Windows machine with
>> the necessary video codecs installed, I can see that it's the /clouds/
>> vs the fixed star field that's the giveaway that the video's a fake.
>> You have to watch it beyond the first minute, after which there are
>> clouds in the foreground. They occasionally jitter up or down, implying
>> a hand-held camera. Except that the starry background doesn't jitter
>> with them.
>
> The US Air Force and NASA's newest nomenclature for UFOs is Unidentified
> Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). Allow me to highlight how the URL above links
> to official US government work product. It leaves a lot to the
> imagination. And it ends with an authorized augural assessment, a data
> driven denouement, so to speak:
>
> Analysis of the full motion video, combined with commercial flight
> data in the region, led AARO to assess that the objects were three
> separate commercial aircraft flying at a great distance from the
> infrared sensor. The radar tracks for commercial aircraft aligned
> with the objects, which were only seen as small dots due to their
> significant distance from the sensor.
>
> Danke,

I read that paragraph, too, very attentively. But data, shmayta,
the video is a fake; one can see that with one's own eyes.
Acknowledgement of such could lead to continued discussion.

On Sun, 03 Sep 2023 06:59:23 +0000, Charles Packer wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Sep 2023 15:04:33 +0000, Don wrote:
>
>> Charles Packer wrote:
>>> pete wrote:
>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.dvidshub.net/video/885193/western-us-objects>
>>>>>
>>>>> ObSF: "The Silly Season" (Kornbluth)
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a UFO believer, but there's some curious things here I'd like
>>>> to see explained further.
>>>>
>>>> I'm restricting myself to the first clip.
>>>>
>>>> It shows a night sky. Fixed stars are visible, in stable positions in
>>>> the frame. At one point what is clearly a jet plane crosses left to
>>>> right near the bottom of the image - a contrail is clearly visible.
>>>>
>>>> The mystery is 3 more dots, halfway down the screen, which move left
>>>> and right in synchrony.
>>>>
>>>> If they're aircraft, why isn't the plane near the bottom affected in
>>>> the same way?
>>>>
>>>> The reasonable assumption is that they're something closer to the
>>>> camera, probably reflections related to 'lens flare'.
>>>>
>>>> The unreasonable assumption is that they're 3 flying saucers flying
>>>> in formation.
>>>>
>>>> The explanation given is that they're distant commercial aircraft.
>>>> But that doesn't gibe with the movements of the jet at the bottom,
>>>> nor their movement across the fixed starfield.
>>>>
>>>> So, I'd like a better explanation.
>>>
>>> Now that I've had a chance to view the video on a Windows machine with
>>> the necessary video codecs installed, I can see that it's the /clouds/
>>> vs the fixed star field that's the giveaway that the video's a fake.
>>> You have to watch it beyond the first minute, after which there are
>>> clouds in the foreground. They occasionally jitter up or down,
>>> implying a hand-held camera. Except that the starry background doesn't
>>> jitter with them.
>>
>> The US Air Force and NASA's newest nomenclature for UFOs is
>> Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). Allow me to highlight how the
>> URL above links to official US government work product. It leaves a lot
>> to the imagination. And it ends with an authorized augural assessment,
>> a data driven denouement, so to speak:
>>
>> Analysis of the full motion video, combined with commercial flight
>> data in the region, led AARO to assess that the objects were three
>> separate commercial aircraft flying at a great distance from the
>> infrared sensor. The radar tracks for commercial aircraft aligned
>> with the objects, which were only seen as small dots due to their
>> significant distance from the sensor.
>>
>> Danke,
>
> I read that paragraph, too, very attentively. But data, shmayta,
> the video is a fake; one can see that with one's own eyes.
> Acknowledgement of such could lead to continued discussion.

Well! It turns out that the "stars" are an artifact. When a cloud
passes in front of one it becomes a dark spot rather than vanishing.
So what kind of artifact in a video image detecting device
would mimic the spatial and brightness distribution of a starry
sky? Inspection with a magnifying glass shows that each of the
star-manques has equal numbers of dark and light pixels. The
dark-light pair is oriented either horizontally or vertically.
Stay tuned for further results.

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:57:20 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer wrote:

> Well! It turns out that the "stars" are an artifact. When a cloud
> passes in front of one it becomes a dark spot rather than vanishing.
> So what kind of artifact in a video image detecting device
> would mimic the spatial and brightness distribution of a starry
> sky? Inspection with a magnifying glass shows that each of the
> star-manques has equal numbers of dark and light pixels. The
> dark-light pair is oriented either horizontally or vertically.

As bad pixels aren't expected to move, this does mean that this
no longer proves the video faked. But what type of video imager
has bad pixels that come in this kind of dark/light pair?

That would seem to be an answerable question.

John Savard

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:17:12 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:57:20 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer wrote:
>
> > Well! It turns out that the "stars" are an artifact. When a cloud
> > passes in front of one it becomes a dark spot rather than vanishing.
> > So what kind of artifact in a video image detecting device
> > would mimic the spatial and brightness distribution of a starry
> > sky? Inspection with a magnifying glass shows that each of the
> > star-manques has equal numbers of dark and light pixels. The
> > dark-light pair is oriented either horizontally or vertically.
> As bad pixels aren't expected to move, this does mean that this
> no longer proves the video faked. But what type of video imager
> has bad pixels that come in this kind of dark/light pair?
>
> That would seem to be an answerable question.

Looking at the URL, I couldn't see the stars myself. But the video
was made on an infrared sensor, in the year 2021 - so we're not
talking about something exotic like a Plumbicon; it will be CCDs or
similar digital sensors. Since it was owned and operated by the
U.S. Air Force, it wouldn't be likely to be used for making faked
UFO videos.

John Savard

On Thu, 07 Sep 2023 03:25:15 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>
> Looking at the URL, I couldn't see the stars myself. But the video was
> made on an infrared sensor, in the year 2021 - so we're not talking
> about something exotic like a Plumbicon; it will be CCDs or similar
> digital sensors. Since it was owned and operated by the U.S. Air Force,
> it wouldn't be likely to be used for making faked UFO videos.
>
> John Savard

Not sure what you mean when you say you couldn't see the stars
(or "stars" -- do we agree that they're an artifact?).
They are quite visible. We are talking about this video, right?
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/885193/western-us-objects

In the meantime, this has happened. I wrote up an analysis of it
and posted it to the Reddit forum r/UAP.
The first time I posted it, it stayed up long enough to get a
dismissive reply from "postagedue" that began "Advanced cameras..."
Then both postings were taken down. So I posted again under a new
title, and it has remained:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UAP/comments/16coc88/
analysis_of_a_video_on_the_aaro_site/
with "postagedue" again replying,
but adding an introductory sentence, "I think you're..."

On Thursday, 7 September 2023 at 11:17:12 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:57:20 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer wrote:
>
> > Well! It turns out that the "stars" are an artifact. When a cloud
> > passes in front of one it becomes a dark spot rather than vanishing.
> > So what kind of artifact in a video image detecting device
> > would mimic the spatial and brightness distribution of a starry
> > sky? Inspection with a magnifying glass shows that each of the
> > star-manques has equal numbers of dark and light pixels. The
> > dark-light pair is oriented either horizontally or vertically.
> As bad pixels aren't expected to move, this does mean that this
> no longer proves the video faked. But what type of video imager
> has bad pixels that come in this kind of dark/light pair?
>
> That would seem to be an answerable question.

This isn't something that I do, but what do
water droplets on glass look like? I want to
say lensing?

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 06:42:09 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> On Thursday, 7 September 2023 at 11:17:12 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 7:57:20 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer wrote:
>>
>> > Well! It turns out that the "stars" are an artifact. When a cloud
>> > passes in front of one it becomes a dark spot rather than vanishing.
>> > So what kind of artifact in a video image detecting device would
>> > mimic the spatial and brightness distribution of a starry sky?
>> > Inspection with a magnifying glass shows that each of the
>> > star-manques has equal numbers of dark and light pixels. The
>> > dark-light pair is oriented either horizontally or vertically.
>> As bad pixels aren't expected to move, this does mean that this no
>> longer proves the video faked. But what type of video imager has bad
>> pixels that come in this kind of dark/light pair?
>>
>> That would seem to be an answerable question.
>
> This isn't something that I do, but what do water droplets on glass look
> like? I want to say lensing?

If they were droplets I think they would all have the same orientation,
or maybe be in patches of common orientation.

Charles Packer wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>> Looking at the URL, I couldn't see the stars myself. But the video was
>> made on an infrared sensor, in the year 2021 - so we're not talking
>> about something exotic like a Plumbicon; it will be CCDs or similar
>> digital sensors. Since it was owned and operated by the U.S. Air Force,
>> it wouldn't be likely to be used for making faked UFO videos.
>
> Not sure what you mean when you say you couldn't see the stars
> (or "stars" -- do we agree that they're an artifact?).
> They are quite visible. We are talking about this video, right?
> https://www.dvidshub.net/video/885193/western-us-objects
>
> In the meantime, this has happened. I wrote up an analysis of it
> and posted it to the Reddit forum r/UAP.
> The first time I posted it, it stayed up long enough to get a
> dismissive reply from "postagedue" that began "Advanced cameras..."
> Then both postings were taken down. So I posted again under a new
> title, and it has remained:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/UAP/comments/16coc88/> analysis_of_a_video_on_the_aaro_site/
> with "postagedue" again replying,
> but adding an introductory sentence, "I think you're..."

postagedue's P-3 premise is a supposition. Presumably "P-3" pertains to
a P-3 Orion?

<https://aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/maritime/p3/>

"Mighty Wurlitzer" spew plume proclaims P-3s use a "Cast Glance"
optical system:

<https://web.archive.org/web/20111106100056/http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Presentations/AIAA_Cast_Glance_Infrared_Imaging_0110.pdf>

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.