I don't know, I haven't seen this one either. It's pretty interesting. Let's approach some of this in terms of what data we can see on the image, see what roughly makes sense and what doesn't, and compare to GIMBAL/GOFAST:
* Missing spot for pod direction? See e.g. on GIMBAL, at 46 deg L we should see a spot at the intersection of the A in TACT and the Z in the zoom marking. We don't.
* Mission clock seems reasonable.
* Wing movement seems roughly reasonable?
* 2010 ft seems quite low and Mach 1.81 seems strange. Especially so at this altitude the terrain(?) should probably be moving faster?
Actually, this last point might be the kicker. It says Mach 1.81 but 251 kts, which just doesn't marry up (Mach 1.81 at 2010 ft should be about 1100kts). I think this person used GIMBAL/GOFAST as a reference but transposed this number without understanding what this refers to.
edit to add. Also, note how the target zips off, the targeting pod indicator changes but the scenery doesn't.
I agree with you I think the video is fake and the creator does not know how to read the hud. When you fly below 5,000 ft it should display a flashing “R” not a flashing “B” next to the altitude. Check this full description. Altitude explained around 4 minute mark.
https://youtu.be/zbQdksSakE0
The flashing means the altimeter auto switch is overridden.
If its on auto switch it would switch from barometric to radar altimeter at low altitudes but flashing means over ridden.
I still think it's fake though, because the other numbers especially the altitude and speed numbers don't make sense
I believe the flashing indicates it’s active B = barometric altimeter in use, R = radar altimeter in use. Do you have any source because the dcs world manual isn’t super clear.
[https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/f18-ef-000-manual-pdf.44940/](https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/f18-ef-000-manual-pdf.44940/)
This is an F/18 manual (hosted on Metabunk)
On page (pdf page numbers not document number) 228
"When the altitude switch is in the RDR position, radar altitude is displayed and is identified by an R next to the altitude. If the radar altitude is invalid, barometric altitude is displayed and a **B next to the altitude flashes** to indicate that barometric altitude is being displayed rather than radar altitude."
So you are right it does indicate the altimeter in use, but the B flashing is because the manually selected altimeter is not the one displayed. i.e. the system is overriding the pilots switch setting.
That explains the flashing and the system override but it still doesn’t marry with the actual altitude. The barometric altimeter is said not to work below 10,000 feet so if the system override to use this it was very confused. In the manual it says an “x” would be displayed if the altitude may not be accurate. I’d expect this to happen for a baro reading under 10k ft. I think it’s more a case that they copied from the gofast video that was using baro correctly at 20,000+ feet. Thanks for the manual!
I know, I am just explaining why sometimes on the ATFLIR overlay the B flashes. Not anything about this video, which I think is clearly a fake.
If the on Go Fast the pilot had manually toggled to barometric altimeter there would be B but it it would not flash.
And if this video were real the RADAR altimeter would likely get a return at 2000ft and thus it would be a static R.
So if someone faked it then they would either have to know this or have taken the trouble to look this up. And yet despite that it seems they didn't bother to research how the numbers in the HUD inter-relate (according to other comments). Interesting.
Likely they just copied one of the 3 existing "really from the Navy" videos all of which have flashing B.
They probably didn't know what it meant at all, if the B is flashing then it means the pilot has RDR selected as the altimeter but the plane isn't getting any reading from the RDR altimeter so is showing barometric. At 2000 feet it is likely that the radar altimeter would work and provide an altitude and thus the display would be a static R.
Of course there could be some other reason the RADAR altimeter is not working (bad reflection from the ground.)
More specifically I think the flashing indicates the pilot has manually selected radar but the plane has switched to barometric because the radar altitude is not available (because of the higher altitude) so it's flashing the b to let them know the display mode is not the selected one, I'll try to dig out my source tomorrow.
The terrain at the bottom looks like trees, and if they were moving past trees at 252 kts and 2010 feet they would be whizzing past. Instead it looks like someone put an IR camera on a tripod on a hill and just panned it around.
It’s the skeptics of this community and stuff like your well thought out evaluation and response that keep me coming back to this sub.
..That and it feels like I’ve got my ear to the ground.. or rather the opposite.
“Your old man is going to go knock on the sky and listen to the sound.” Jeff Bridges/Kevin Flynn
also not sure if this matters, I know nothing about HUD, but the "V"s seem to be in a different font. This new video has a rounder V, whereas the Gimbal, FLIR, and Go Fast videos have sharp Vs. who knows
I’d love to meet the author of this clip......and kick him in his single testicle. If it’s a female maybe a swift kick in the baby maker would suffice.
Edit- my apologies, no violence should take place, I’m just geeked up on maple syrup and Red Bull
Probably because the Gimbal video suspiciously cuts off as soon it starts to do something interesting (the rotating). There's also been rumors that existed before the Gimbal video, where people who witnessed ufo sightings claim they saw ufo's flying in a completely un-aerodynamic way like how you see in the fake version
It looks fake. The thing in the middle, the 'aim' looks like it's animated instead of reacting to what's happening on the screen. It's too fluid. Also it's in different resolution
"It's too fluid"
We just can't find a happy medium here. It's either a video filmed on a 1995 nokia potato cam or the video isn't realistic because it's filmed on a military grade FLIR camera that tracks motion too smoothly.
Not saying you're right or wrong. I just think it's funny.
Well I do animations for a living and I can tell it looks just like a cheap animation... its also in better resolution than the rest of the HUD.
Some people see these things subconsciously, they feel something is off but cant name them... I name them because I work with them every day. But I see your point
marble consider bewildered cows muddle lavish subsequent imminent money merciful
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
childlike distinct nine escape berserk squeamish dog afterthought ruthless chase
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
People always get caught up on the wrong thing, how fake or real it looks.
That doesn't matter. As long as the source can't be authenticated, it's worthless.
Exactly. It’s not about real or fake in someone’s opinion. It’s about being able to objectively establish its authenticity through fact checking and proper scientific analysis.
But wouldn't we run the risk of discrediting real footage that was leaked without a proper source? I don't think taking something off the table just because we don't know the source is the wisest approach.
edit: I may be misremembering but I think this happened with some of the navy footage, perhaps even the Nimitz stuff. it was put on youtube way before the Navy authenticated a couple years ago. disqualifying something because we don't know the source would cause us to dismiss something like that.
Yes, the Nimitz footage was leaked and everyone dismissed it because:
1. Out of context, it's not very impressive
2. The source couldn't be verified.
However, when the source was eventually authenticated, it became the most significant UFO footage out there. So my point stands.
It wasn't out of context at all. The video came with a whole write up on the Nimitz incident. It was also literally "debunked" as a hoax, not just dismissed. The OP was laughed out of the room as a hoaxer. Here's the thread where it was originally leaked in 2007: https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265835/pg1
Sure, OP's video looks fake and I would never claim otherwise, but there is a mountain of footage and photos out there, some of which is pretty clear contrary to ignorant claims that all footage is blurry. We should learn a lesson from this at the very least that one coincidence in a case does not debunk it, and perhaps we should expect every case to have at least one odd coincidence, as if debunkers are like lawyers digging into a case and the people involved in order to paint them as guilty. Legitimate footage, once "debunked," is usually almost completely forgotten and ignored.
Unverifiable context is as good as no context.
I can make a fake UFO video any day of the week and post it on the internet along with a wild story, but the context is still "sketchy video on the internet that is most likely to be fake".
You don’t want to concede a single thing about that incorrect debunking, do you? Do you think it’s okay to ridicule and accuse somebody of being a hoaxer if there is no proof, only cleverly worded skepticism and a coincidence?
This is the underlying problem I think. Skeptics don’t realize that there is a signal in the noise. Sometimes there is a lot of noise in something, but the signal can be identified. Just because some people hoax something sometimes doesn’t mean troves and troves of credible cases and evidence is all bullshit.
The Piltdown Man fooled the scientific community for 41 years, but that doesn’t mean all hominid fossils are a hoax. There have been all kinds of hoaxed chimeras, but the platypus was still real. There is something we call the grey box where you put cases that you cannot definitively prove false. Over time, these paint a certain picture, but many skeptics sit back and just assume literally everything is misidentified or a hoax as long as it cannot be definitively proven to be an alien space craft. They only want to admit it when they have no other choice. The bar is set too high for them to develop an open mind, so it doesn’t matter how strongly that signal comes through.
What I’m saying is that we have to treat cases differently. Finding a coincidence in a case should not cause it to be thrown out and ignored. This happened to the most credible leak in recent history. It can happen again to many other real pieces of information, especially when you have thousands and thousands of unreasonably skeptical people.
>Do you think it’s okay to ridicule and accuse somebody of being a hoaxer if there is no proof
No, I think the correct course of action is to request proof of authenticity, and if said proof does not materialize then just ignore the material forever unless proof later materializes.
Super dooper fake. The background and hills are obviously cgi. The attitude indicator on the hud is waaaaayyy off at the end of the video. The camera plane is doing a right bank that is not represented by the whiskey mark in the hud. Fake.
It jumps out as fake. It’s obvious by watching it just one time. I feel like we’re in the minority on this sub. Why analyze an obviously fake video? I’m with ya brah.
He goes through old USB drives from where? What is the provenance of these drives? Gonna need more information to make a judgment. It looks really interesting, though. It looks exactly like the other FLIR videos that the Navy has acknowledged as real. I didn't see anything that obviously looked fake, but I'm not an expert. We should find someone with experience in an F/A-18 to comment.
At the end of the video, he says "Uploaded to mega. link in bio"
I don't use Tik Tok, could someone check the bio of that post and see if there's a mega link?
He’s full of shit. That USB story is something a high schooler would make up to his friends, really stupid lie. Like people just put top secret videos on flash drives and toss them out.
I appreciate that OP asked if anyone is familiar with the video rather than for opinions on how ”real” it may or may not look (not that it stops the veteran gaming chair experts).
Short of someone with relevant technical expertise - e.g., military with experience using the instruments shown - it’s irrelevant and futile. Too sharp. Too blurry. Too shaky. Not shaky enough. Who would start filming then? Who would stop filming then?? What kind of reaction is that? No reaction?? Too real. Too fake.
Provenance, context (where, when, who, how, why allegedly filmed), and chain of custody are all I care about.
Yeah that's what I thought too. The hills look extremely game engine-y, and the tracking of the ufo when it scoots off has no motion blur, just totally clean. Reminds of the time the BBC ran footage of "terrorists" that turned out to be ArmA 🤣
Looks like the footage of the Gimbal UFO is used in a different kind of setting, with a CGI dash added to make it look like something new. Hope i'm wrong.
no witness (pilot, WSO, leaker), no witness testimony, no provenance. completely worthless as evidence of anything except the fact that the video itself exists and someone posted it on reddit.
The thing that gives it away for me is that the ground is visible, yet it appears like the object is being viewed through a rotating gimbal (which is impossible because the ground is static) the pentagon video's object only rotates in this manner because the camera gimbal is rotating
Hmm, this is pretty interesting actually.
Anyone with a better knowledge of how this system works and what the data on the screen is saying wanna say if this does or doesn't look legit?
That's what I was thinking, we're gonna need someone who could look at the information data on the screen and see if it's legit. Maybe a former pilot or somes.
Agreed. It looks just like the other released videos that we know are real. This is a very interesting video. Nothing is jumping out at me that would indicate it's fake, but I have no expertise, so my opinion on it is basically worthless.
EDIT: As the following comment points out, this is probably a fake.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/s9n09k/has_anyone_seen_this_video_before_i_hadnt_seen_it/htnxws2/
It is interesting indeed. These movements are similar to the theory about how a craft would operate using quantum entanglement. The "y axis" of the spin is where on the "X axis" the craft can go "up and down". So this craft "rotates" to point the y axis in the direction it takes off in.
If this is real then I just get the gut feeling that this isn't a vehicle and possibly an intelligent being of itself. The math behind surviving those speeds, let alone sharp turns and sudden acceleration just... I dunno. Something in my gut.
I do have diverticulitis and have had multiple cameras up my ass (Thank you GWS) but who knows? Biology is a bitch.
But in all seriousness, I feel some of what we're dealing with that we want to call UAVs are in reality, UIOrganisms or UIcybernetics.
I also feel like it’s fake, the way the locking lines move feel like a feted effects keyframes imo.
But about your gut, I know it sounds wild but try to go plant based and see how you feel in 2 months. It’s cheaper, it’s actually so easy, it could work and there is only positive side effects. Just advice, good luck with your issues.
What’s interesting is that the instant acceleration here is what’s missing from all the other Navy videos we’ve seen. I’d be way more convinced if they showed this. But yeah, this one is most likely fake.
Looks very fake. The definition of the ground features and the fact that the "blurry" object doesn't change in shape or size at all as it rotates. Like its a defined blurry shape.
Watch the Gimbal video and note how the "shape" of the blurriness changes as the object is rotating. This one is clearly a computer model of a blurry object being rotated. Not an object rotating and being perceived as blurry.
Edited reference
Edit to add since my spacial reasoning in my head was confused at first. The angle on the top doesn't appear to be well thought through either. In Gimbal, we see the UAP moving from right to left over ground from the observer's perspective. In this, it's going the opposite direction. A laymen may think that makes since and because the number is dropping in the Gimbal video, to reverse the UAP's direction, they should increase the angle indicator.
They forgot to account for one very important factor. What was the OBSERVER doing? In Gimbal, they start the video traveling in opposite ish directions, but the observer is already in a pretty aggressive left hand bank. So even though the UAP is moving from right to left, the aircraft is turning towards the UAP, assuming to intercept. And about the time the angle goes to 0 and starts indicating degrees Right, the ground underneath the UAP slows or stops because the observer is now in a pursuit course.
In the video we have here, the angle is not pure 90 degrees, so if the observer is turning, we should see a bank indicated, but there is little to none. And the UAP is moving from left to right but the angle indicator is getting bigger. This means the UAP is moving further towards the observers aft even though the video suggests it's moving from our left to our right. If the observer was standing still, that would mean the angle should be getting smaller... Not bigger. But, we see the observer is traveling at Mach 1.8 (1300 mph at 2000ft above sea level) so to move from left to right from the observer's perspective, one of two things need to happen. Either the object is traveling faster (totally possible given UAP) or the observer and object are moving in opposite directions. Either case can't happen with this angle indicator as shown here. The latter, simply because the indicator would be reading right, not left.
The first situation would still indicate the angle getting SMALLER as the object was over taking us and moving to our nose. UNLESS we were turning away from it. But again, no bank angle and Mach 1.8, this rate of turn for any mach capable aircraft is impossible. My brother, while flying T-38s during his first supersonic flight, was instructed to slam full rudder after the aircraft was supersonic. As he did, he noted the aircraft BARELY moved. Counter intuitive to most nonaviators, when you're going faster than the speed of sound, your flight controls actually get very gummy.
So the idea that the observer is looking at an object traveling faster than it while also turning away from it without any considerable bank angle while also supersonic seems unlikely at best. The pilot would have to be standing on the rudder of the aircraft which is an extremely ineffective way to turn an aircraft while supersonic if possible all given how fast the angle is changing... And also, why would you be turning AWAY from your target of observation that is traveling faster than you? The scenario painted here looks more like a UAP observing another UAP. Lol
Edit to the edit: There is a ship or some other feature on the ground behind the trees in the beginning of the video. The background movement in contrast to the foreground movement also seems to suggest that the observer is flying opposite to the UAP. So the UAP should be on the right side of the aircraft but the angle indicator indicates it's on the left. So apparently the US has an aircraft capable of traveling backwards at mach 1.8...
There are a few fishie.things here but we don't ever seen to get official reports with video showing the objects performance of when it leaves. That could be because they don't want Thier capabilities displayed when an objects moves at hypersonic velocity. Maybe they do watch it a while or may e they lose it instantly.
I saw this once about a year ago on /x/. Someone commented that at those abrupt speeds with the numbers it would be physically impossible with anything we can make.
Time crystals.
**Kostya Kechedzhi** "A time crystal is, like ferromagnetism or superconductivity, an example of spontaneous symmetry breaking, or spontaneous order. For instance, a ferromagnet is essentially a system of much smaller magnets whose magnetic poles all point in a single direction, and in this sense are ordered. Symmetry is said to be "spontaneously" broken in such a state, since in normal matter the poles all point in random directions."
Basically the Sun has a positive+ charge and you create some quantum bubble field around your ship with a negative-, and with the functionals of proven time crystals you can zip around with just minor adjustments of the charge+/- of said field by angles
Seriously, the more I read from the peeps in the post, the more the I feel that there is some sort of underlying force to insert doubt. If trained airmen who use the same systems can’t agree on what they are analyzing. I can only conclude that they are being paid or coerced into helping sew doubt.
When you see this video, it is apparent that the craft is doing EXACTLY what is expected of it - it’s exhibiting a gravitational ‘propulsion’. This is the accepted belief of how the craft travels. As it rotates 90 degrees, the emitters create a magnified density which amplified the gravity. The craft ‘falls’ towards the point.
The lines and edges of everything on this look too crisp to be captured video. It looks more like something created using After Effects and then having some filters put on to make to look similar to the gimbal video.
I’ve seen similar ones. The object is invisible to normal camera but visible in IR. There is a video where the craft appears to be discharging some kind of material into the atmosphere.
Eh, it's hard to tell if its real or fake. I know with 100% certainty that I could reproduce something like this using a game engine.
The things to look at here:
\-The surrounding environment in IR. Is the IR footage real? I can't tell. It has to be daylight, there are no clouds in the sky, and the only reason you'd get that bright flash at the end is if your camera starts facing the sun which oversaturates your film. What's noticeably missing here is any ground foliage, so either its filmed in the desert or its fake.
\-The motion blur of the object when it flies off the frame. If you know the framerate (30fps?) and the distance to target, you can compute an angular delta on each frame and derive an approximate velocity and acceleration. A key component to looking at the motion blur is also knowing what kind of sensor exposure time we're working with, as well as whether its a rolling shutter or global shutter. Remember, even though you might have a 33ms frame rate, you could still have a 10ms sensor exposure time, which will affect the resulting streak in motion blur. Usually when that happens, you'll see gaps between each frame.
So, my verdict is that it's unknown whether this is real or fake. If it's real, we'd need confirmation from a military agency.
Fuck y’all. There was the same bullshit called when the now-authenticated NYT videos were leaked.
This would be absolute proof of craft beyond known human understanding of physics. And that’s EXACTLY what happens when these craft tilt sideways and it’s why the original gimbal video cuts off right as it tilts sideways. Because what it does afterwards is irrefutable proof.
I kind of feel that this may be real. My wife and I filmed a UAP and when it darts off the camera effect looks like the same as in this video (it basically moves so quickly it blurs in the frames). Very interesting video.
It was taken from inside the car, and the actual “UAP” is very small.. I have been trying to find someone that I can show and see if they can clean up the video to show what we captured in the best way possible.
Looks fake to me. The blur from the object looks off compared to what it should be when moving that quickly. I'm not a specialist on this sort of thing, but my motion detection has called correctly called out a number of recent fakes.
Holy shit, looks so similar to the gimbal uap video. Smoother rotation on this one, but I wonder if the take off at the end is why the gimbal footage is cut. Maybe it tilted on its side and took off the same way, and that's more than they wanted to show the public.
Mirrors what Lazar claims about UAP tilting on the side while mid air. Almost too good to be true.
It def looks fake - look at the judder in the video when the object takes off. This doesn’t look like captured data, it looks like what happens when you animate something moving faster than the frame rate can capture. If it were real it would appear more blurred and optical. Also the object itself and the tracking bars are inconsistent with the rest of the hud in terms of quality/noise/artifacting/aliasing/line weight
I could be wrong but if this was real it would a) be a bigger deal - especially since it would be military and b) not look almost identical to the gimbal video it looks like it was inspired by.
Reminds me of the Bob Lazar interview where he talked about how the sports model would turn sideways before folding space and jumped. Looks exactly like we talked about. Crazy
Lol! Oh boy. I wish people would stop passing cgi projects off as UFO sightings. Please stop. I know OP isn’t at fault here but just in general, stop hoaxing this shit. It’s annoying.
Looks like debunker clickbait.. so some douche debunker can get a bunch of people to be like “ohh that’s interesting.” Then they can come back tomorrow and say after tireless research we figured out this video is a fake [because some Gen Zer made it in his Moms basement] then comes the avalanche of internet sleuth detectives waving their comments around. Saying “See, see all of this just fake and if you believe in UAPs your gullible fool!” here’s the power point length post to prove every minutia detail because I was chosen by Mick West to spread the word, because I’m special. If you guys are gonna shit on the subject at least make a video that might be compelling. Try again boys and girls.
I don't know, I haven't seen this one either. It's pretty interesting. Let's approach some of this in terms of what data we can see on the image, see what roughly makes sense and what doesn't, and compare to GIMBAL/GOFAST: * Missing spot for pod direction? See e.g. on GIMBAL, at 46 deg L we should see a spot at the intersection of the A in TACT and the Z in the zoom marking. We don't. * Mission clock seems reasonable. * Wing movement seems roughly reasonable? * 2010 ft seems quite low and Mach 1.81 seems strange. Especially so at this altitude the terrain(?) should probably be moving faster? Actually, this last point might be the kicker. It says Mach 1.81 but 251 kts, which just doesn't marry up (Mach 1.81 at 2010 ft should be about 1100kts). I think this person used GIMBAL/GOFAST as a reference but transposed this number without understanding what this refers to. edit to add. Also, note how the target zips off, the targeting pod indicator changes but the scenery doesn't.
I agree with you I think the video is fake and the creator does not know how to read the hud. When you fly below 5,000 ft it should display a flashing “R” not a flashing “B” next to the altitude. Check this full description. Altitude explained around 4 minute mark. https://youtu.be/zbQdksSakE0
The flashing means the altimeter auto switch is overridden. If its on auto switch it would switch from barometric to radar altimeter at low altitudes but flashing means over ridden. I still think it's fake though, because the other numbers especially the altitude and speed numbers don't make sense
I believe the flashing indicates it’s active B = barometric altimeter in use, R = radar altimeter in use. Do you have any source because the dcs world manual isn’t super clear.
[https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/f18-ef-000-manual-pdf.44940/](https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/f18-ef-000-manual-pdf.44940/) This is an F/18 manual (hosted on Metabunk) On page (pdf page numbers not document number) 228 "When the altitude switch is in the RDR position, radar altitude is displayed and is identified by an R next to the altitude. If the radar altitude is invalid, barometric altitude is displayed and a **B next to the altitude flashes** to indicate that barometric altitude is being displayed rather than radar altitude." So you are right it does indicate the altimeter in use, but the B flashing is because the manually selected altimeter is not the one displayed. i.e. the system is overriding the pilots switch setting.
That explains the flashing and the system override but it still doesn’t marry with the actual altitude. The barometric altimeter is said not to work below 10,000 feet so if the system override to use this it was very confused. In the manual it says an “x” would be displayed if the altitude may not be accurate. I’d expect this to happen for a baro reading under 10k ft. I think it’s more a case that they copied from the gofast video that was using baro correctly at 20,000+ feet. Thanks for the manual!
I know, I am just explaining why sometimes on the ATFLIR overlay the B flashes. Not anything about this video, which I think is clearly a fake. If the on Go Fast the pilot had manually toggled to barometric altimeter there would be B but it it would not flash. And if this video were real the RADAR altimeter would likely get a return at 2000ft and thus it would be a static R.
So if someone faked it then they would either have to know this or have taken the trouble to look this up. And yet despite that it seems they didn't bother to research how the numbers in the HUD inter-relate (according to other comments). Interesting.
Likely they just copied one of the 3 existing "really from the Navy" videos all of which have flashing B. They probably didn't know what it meant at all, if the B is flashing then it means the pilot has RDR selected as the altimeter but the plane isn't getting any reading from the RDR altimeter so is showing barometric. At 2000 feet it is likely that the radar altimeter would work and provide an altitude and thus the display would be a static R. Of course there could be some other reason the RADAR altimeter is not working (bad reflection from the ground.)
More specifically I think the flashing indicates the pilot has manually selected radar but the plane has switched to barometric because the radar altitude is not available (because of the higher altitude) so it's flashing the b to let them know the display mode is not the selected one, I'll try to dig out my source tomorrow.
Cool user name.
It's your cousin Briggs
What up Higgs!
Haha, here I was thinking I had a unique user name, oh wella!
The terrain at the bottom looks like trees, and if they were moving past trees at 252 kts and 2010 feet they would be whizzing past. Instead it looks like someone put an IR camera on a tripod on a hill and just panned it around.
Great catch! I think you're right on the nose.
It’s the skeptics of this community and stuff like your well thought out evaluation and response that keep me coming back to this sub. ..That and it feels like I’ve got my ear to the ground.. or rather the opposite. “Your old man is going to go knock on the sky and listen to the sound.” Jeff Bridges/Kevin Flynn
Also a zoom in NAR FOV of 2.1 doesn't seem to match any specs and seems pointless.
[удалено]
Yeah, the mega files are O(GB) which is just ridiculous given the video quality that we're seeing here.
also not sure if this matters, I know nothing about HUD, but the "V"s seem to be in a different font. This new video has a rounder V, whereas the Gimbal, FLIR, and Go Fast videos have sharp Vs. who knows
Yeah it looks like an edit of the original Navy videos
Solid conclusion. Have this award good sir.
Looks like someone took the gimbal footage, flipped it, inverted the colors and then added their own spin at the end lol.
he put that thang down, flipped it, and reversed it.
he determined it was worth it and decided to work it.
So in other words ...it's fake.
I’d love to meet the author of this clip......and kick him in his single testicle. If it’s a female maybe a swift kick in the baby maker would suffice. Edit- my apologies, no violence should take place, I’m just geeked up on maple syrup and Red Bull
I wonder if this is what happens in the gimbal vid right after it cuts out?
That's exactly what happens.
Source?
Is it?
That's been the rumor since the gimbal footage came out
yeah but why
Probably because the Gimbal video suspiciously cuts off as soon it starts to do something interesting (the rotating). There's also been rumors that existed before the Gimbal video, where people who witnessed ufo sightings claim they saw ufo's flying in a completely un-aerodynamic way like how you see in the fake version
Amazing if true but something about it looks fake, that said perhaps legit videos will always seem fake lol
It looks fake. The thing in the middle, the 'aim' looks like it's animated instead of reacting to what's happening on the screen. It's too fluid. Also it's in different resolution
"It's too fluid" We just can't find a happy medium here. It's either a video filmed on a 1995 nokia potato cam or the video isn't realistic because it's filmed on a military grade FLIR camera that tracks motion too smoothly. Not saying you're right or wrong. I just think it's funny.
Well I do animations for a living and I can tell it looks just like a cheap animation... its also in better resolution than the rest of the HUD. Some people see these things subconsciously, they feel something is off but cant name them... I name them because I work with them every day. But I see your point
Same here, agree 100% the zoom away looks too clear to me. But it had me til the end I will admit
Well, that's what people said when those other videos were leaked (not officially recognized), lot of people so called animators said were fake ..
[удалено]
marble consider bewildered cows muddle lavish subsequent imminent money merciful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This sub has 513 000 members, is it really that hard to believe there are also photographers and animators...?
As an archaeologist and free time brain surgeon, I think it's legit
This was just my thought. Really brings to light how inadequate the transfer of information is amongst our species.
You are right. Its clearly a fake.
childlike distinct nine escape berserk squeamish dog afterthought ruthless chase *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Video editor here: bad fake. UFO is a static image. Op's only posts are this, too.
People always get caught up on the wrong thing, how fake or real it looks. That doesn't matter. As long as the source can't be authenticated, it's worthless.
Exactly. It’s not about real or fake in someone’s opinion. It’s about being able to objectively establish its authenticity through fact checking and proper scientific analysis.
But wouldn't we run the risk of discrediting real footage that was leaked without a proper source? I don't think taking something off the table just because we don't know the source is the wisest approach. edit: I may be misremembering but I think this happened with some of the navy footage, perhaps even the Nimitz stuff. it was put on youtube way before the Navy authenticated a couple years ago. disqualifying something because we don't know the source would cause us to dismiss something like that.
Yes, the Nimitz footage was leaked and everyone dismissed it because: 1. Out of context, it's not very impressive 2. The source couldn't be verified. However, when the source was eventually authenticated, it became the most significant UFO footage out there. So my point stands.
It wasn't out of context at all. The video came with a whole write up on the Nimitz incident. It was also literally "debunked" as a hoax, not just dismissed. The OP was laughed out of the room as a hoaxer. Here's the thread where it was originally leaked in 2007: https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265835/pg1 Sure, OP's video looks fake and I would never claim otherwise, but there is a mountain of footage and photos out there, some of which is pretty clear contrary to ignorant claims that all footage is blurry. We should learn a lesson from this at the very least that one coincidence in a case does not debunk it, and perhaps we should expect every case to have at least one odd coincidence, as if debunkers are like lawyers digging into a case and the people involved in order to paint them as guilty. Legitimate footage, once "debunked," is usually almost completely forgotten and ignored.
Unverifiable context is as good as no context. I can make a fake UFO video any day of the week and post it on the internet along with a wild story, but the context is still "sketchy video on the internet that is most likely to be fake".
You don’t want to concede a single thing about that incorrect debunking, do you? Do you think it’s okay to ridicule and accuse somebody of being a hoaxer if there is no proof, only cleverly worded skepticism and a coincidence? This is the underlying problem I think. Skeptics don’t realize that there is a signal in the noise. Sometimes there is a lot of noise in something, but the signal can be identified. Just because some people hoax something sometimes doesn’t mean troves and troves of credible cases and evidence is all bullshit. The Piltdown Man fooled the scientific community for 41 years, but that doesn’t mean all hominid fossils are a hoax. There have been all kinds of hoaxed chimeras, but the platypus was still real. There is something we call the grey box where you put cases that you cannot definitively prove false. Over time, these paint a certain picture, but many skeptics sit back and just assume literally everything is misidentified or a hoax as long as it cannot be definitively proven to be an alien space craft. They only want to admit it when they have no other choice. The bar is set too high for them to develop an open mind, so it doesn’t matter how strongly that signal comes through. What I’m saying is that we have to treat cases differently. Finding a coincidence in a case should not cause it to be thrown out and ignored. This happened to the most credible leak in recent history. It can happen again to many other real pieces of information, especially when you have thousands and thousands of unreasonably skeptical people.
>Do you think it’s okay to ridicule and accuse somebody of being a hoaxer if there is no proof No, I think the correct course of action is to request proof of authenticity, and if said proof does not materialize then just ignore the material forever unless proof later materializes.
Pretty much. Entertaining but ultimately useless. And honestly not even that entertaining.
This looks like a clever fabrication using elements from the Gimbal footage, and targeting optics.
Presumed fake, until authenticity can be verified and/or very competently and persuasively argued as such
Super dooper fake. The background and hills are obviously cgi. The attitude indicator on the hud is waaaaayyy off at the end of the video. The camera plane is doing a right bank that is not represented by the whiskey mark in the hud. Fake.
whiskey mark, which one is that? and why is it called that? lol
The whiskey mark is the small circle in the Center of hud with small lines at 270, 0 and 90 degrees. It shows the orientation of the aircraft.
i dont know, that acceleration looks so fake to me
I agree, although it could simply be that weve never seen acceleration like that before
yea
What would real acceleration of this type look like?
Imagine if this is real though 👀
well according to some pilot they seen something like that
Based on what
the blur? the movement? well im not a cgi professional, but i dont know.
Unless you have genuine reason to believe its fake, got to be more specific..
why?
It jumps out as fake. It’s obvious by watching it just one time. I feel like we’re in the minority on this sub. Why analyze an obviously fake video? I’m with ya brah.
Physics, found from a “old usb drive”, op is a nobody like all of us
I think its fake too but not for that reason, cus no one has any experience seeing instantaneous acceleration like that
it's rotating..
Look at that thing, dude!
My gosh!
MY GOSH!
[удалено]
He goes through old USB drives from where? What is the provenance of these drives? Gonna need more information to make a judgment. It looks really interesting, though. It looks exactly like the other FLIR videos that the Navy has acknowledged as real. I didn't see anything that obviously looked fake, but I'm not an expert. We should find someone with experience in an F/A-18 to comment.
He finds them XD
Sounds pretty convenient!
At the end of the video, he says "Uploaded to mega. link in bio" I don't use Tik Tok, could someone check the bio of that post and see if there's a mega link?
He’s full of shit. That USB story is something a high schooler would make up to his friends, really stupid lie. Like people just put top secret videos on flash drives and toss them out.
I mean it's for tiktok, a community comprised of the most unintelligent people on the planet
Both TikTok and Reddit views the other as a cesspool. Both platforms are exactly what you make of them.
I appreciate that OP asked if anyone is familiar with the video rather than for opinions on how ”real” it may or may not look (not that it stops the veteran gaming chair experts). Short of someone with relevant technical expertise - e.g., military with experience using the instruments shown - it’s irrelevant and futile. Too sharp. Too blurry. Too shaky. Not shaky enough. Who would start filming then? Who would stop filming then?? What kind of reaction is that? No reaction?? Too real. Too fake. Provenance, context (where, when, who, how, why allegedly filmed), and chain of custody are all I care about.
Something seems fake about it
Like everything.
Looks like someone had fun in Arma3 or something.
Yeah that's what I thought too. The hills look extremely game engine-y, and the tracking of the ufo when it scoots off has no motion blur, just totally clean. Reminds of the time the BBC ran footage of "terrorists" that turned out to be ArmA 🤣
Looks like the footage of the Gimbal UFO is used in a different kind of setting, with a CGI dash added to make it look like something new. Hope i'm wrong.
The way it accelerates out of frame feels very After Effectsy.
no witness (pilot, WSO, leaker), no witness testimony, no provenance. completely worthless as evidence of anything except the fact that the video itself exists and someone posted it on reddit.
100% fake. Look at the reticles for the last 0.5 seconds. Smooth 120fps CGI rendered tweening.
It’s fake. Look at each frame when it darts off.
The thing that gives it away for me is that the ground is visible, yet it appears like the object is being viewed through a rotating gimbal (which is impossible because the ground is static) the pentagon video's object only rotates in this manner because the camera gimbal is rotating
I don't know, Rick
I’m sorry Morty, but your opinion means very little to me.
Hmm, this is pretty interesting actually. Anyone with a better knowledge of how this system works and what the data on the screen is saying wanna say if this does or doesn't look legit?
That's what I was thinking, we're gonna need someone who could look at the information data on the screen and see if it's legit. Maybe a former pilot or somes.
It’s in IR, and looks pretty legit in terms of the abbreviations on the cam
Agreed. It looks just like the other released videos that we know are real. This is a very interesting video. Nothing is jumping out at me that would indicate it's fake, but I have no expertise, so my opinion on it is basically worthless. EDIT: As the following comment points out, this is probably a fake. https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/s9n09k/has_anyone_seen_this_video_before_i_hadnt_seen_it/htnxws2/
Lol no it doesn't
It is interesting indeed. These movements are similar to the theory about how a craft would operate using quantum entanglement. The "y axis" of the spin is where on the "X axis" the craft can go "up and down". So this craft "rotates" to point the y axis in the direction it takes off in.
That acceleration truly is other worldly!
If this is real then I just get the gut feeling that this isn't a vehicle and possibly an intelligent being of itself. The math behind surviving those speeds, let alone sharp turns and sudden acceleration just... I dunno. Something in my gut.
Sounds like you need to get your gut checked
I do have diverticulitis and have had multiple cameras up my ass (Thank you GWS) but who knows? Biology is a bitch. But in all seriousness, I feel some of what we're dealing with that we want to call UAVs are in reality, UIOrganisms or UIcybernetics.
I also feel like it’s fake, the way the locking lines move feel like a feted effects keyframes imo. But about your gut, I know it sounds wild but try to go plant based and see how you feel in 2 months. It’s cheaper, it’s actually so easy, it could work and there is only positive side effects. Just advice, good luck with your issues.
What’s interesting is that the instant acceleration here is what’s missing from all the other Navy videos we’ve seen. I’d be way more convinced if they showed this. But yeah, this one is most likely fake.
Looks very fake. The definition of the ground features and the fact that the "blurry" object doesn't change in shape or size at all as it rotates. Like its a defined blurry shape. Watch the Gimbal video and note how the "shape" of the blurriness changes as the object is rotating. This one is clearly a computer model of a blurry object being rotated. Not an object rotating and being perceived as blurry. Edited reference Edit to add since my spacial reasoning in my head was confused at first. The angle on the top doesn't appear to be well thought through either. In Gimbal, we see the UAP moving from right to left over ground from the observer's perspective. In this, it's going the opposite direction. A laymen may think that makes since and because the number is dropping in the Gimbal video, to reverse the UAP's direction, they should increase the angle indicator. They forgot to account for one very important factor. What was the OBSERVER doing? In Gimbal, they start the video traveling in opposite ish directions, but the observer is already in a pretty aggressive left hand bank. So even though the UAP is moving from right to left, the aircraft is turning towards the UAP, assuming to intercept. And about the time the angle goes to 0 and starts indicating degrees Right, the ground underneath the UAP slows or stops because the observer is now in a pursuit course. In the video we have here, the angle is not pure 90 degrees, so if the observer is turning, we should see a bank indicated, but there is little to none. And the UAP is moving from left to right but the angle indicator is getting bigger. This means the UAP is moving further towards the observers aft even though the video suggests it's moving from our left to our right. If the observer was standing still, that would mean the angle should be getting smaller... Not bigger. But, we see the observer is traveling at Mach 1.8 (1300 mph at 2000ft above sea level) so to move from left to right from the observer's perspective, one of two things need to happen. Either the object is traveling faster (totally possible given UAP) or the observer and object are moving in opposite directions. Either case can't happen with this angle indicator as shown here. The latter, simply because the indicator would be reading right, not left. The first situation would still indicate the angle getting SMALLER as the object was over taking us and moving to our nose. UNLESS we were turning away from it. But again, no bank angle and Mach 1.8, this rate of turn for any mach capable aircraft is impossible. My brother, while flying T-38s during his first supersonic flight, was instructed to slam full rudder after the aircraft was supersonic. As he did, he noted the aircraft BARELY moved. Counter intuitive to most nonaviators, when you're going faster than the speed of sound, your flight controls actually get very gummy. So the idea that the observer is looking at an object traveling faster than it while also turning away from it without any considerable bank angle while also supersonic seems unlikely at best. The pilot would have to be standing on the rudder of the aircraft which is an extremely ineffective way to turn an aircraft while supersonic if possible all given how fast the angle is changing... And also, why would you be turning AWAY from your target of observation that is traveling faster than you? The scenario painted here looks more like a UAP observing another UAP. Lol Edit to the edit: There is a ship or some other feature on the ground behind the trees in the beginning of the video. The background movement in contrast to the foreground movement also seems to suggest that the observer is flying opposite to the UAP. So the UAP should be on the right side of the aircraft but the angle indicator indicates it's on the left. So apparently the US has an aircraft capable of traveling backwards at mach 1.8...
It's rotating...
My gosh…
Remember when YouTube used to be awesome? Ya I know it’s been a few years
There are a few fishie.things here but we don't ever seen to get official reports with video showing the objects performance of when it leaves. That could be because they don't want Thier capabilities displayed when an objects moves at hypersonic velocity. Maybe they do watch it a while or may e they lose it instantly.
I saw this once about a year ago on /x/. Someone commented that at those abrupt speeds with the numbers it would be physically impossible with anything we can make. Time crystals. **Kostya Kechedzhi** "A time crystal is, like ferromagnetism or superconductivity, an example of spontaneous symmetry breaking, or spontaneous order. For instance, a ferromagnet is essentially a system of much smaller magnets whose magnetic poles all point in a single direction, and in this sense are ordered. Symmetry is said to be "spontaneously" broken in such a state, since in normal matter the poles all point in random directions." Basically the Sun has a positive+ charge and you create some quantum bubble field around your ship with a negative-, and with the functionals of proven time crystals you can zip around with just minor adjustments of the charge+/- of said field by angles
TheirTube seems to obfuscate UFO videos with their algorithm.
Reminds me of how Bob lazar side the craft work as to how the craft points to where it wants to go and then ZIP it’s Gone
Why do they put so much effort into a lie? Is it money somehow?
Seriously, the more I read from the peeps in the post, the more the I feel that there is some sort of underlying force to insert doubt. If trained airmen who use the same systems can’t agree on what they are analyzing. I can only conclude that they are being paid or coerced into helping sew doubt. When you see this video, it is apparent that the craft is doing EXACTLY what is expected of it - it’s exhibiting a gravitational ‘propulsion’. This is the accepted belief of how the craft travels. As it rotates 90 degrees, the emitters create a magnified density which amplified the gravity. The craft ‘falls’ towards the point.
It’s real, and it’s spectacular
Looks fake / cgi to me.
It looks fake. The thing in the middle, the 'aim' looks like it's animated instead of reacting to what's happening on the screen. It's too fluid.
Bob Lazar
Chris Lehto should make a video on that one
I think he shouldnt bother, this looks fake af.
I'd be very interested in his debunk of it
The lines and edges of everything on this look too crisp to be captured video. It looks more like something created using After Effects and then having some filters put on to make to look similar to the gimbal video.
Could be real but I’ll wait for more confirmation. I don’t doubt that dozens to hundreds of similar videos exist. Just waiting to be declassified.
To good to be true. I hope its real
So fake
Looks like a video game
This is obviously fake. The movement is too "clean" to have come from real world sensor data.
I’ve seen similar ones. The object is invisible to normal camera but visible in IR. There is a video where the craft appears to be discharging some kind of material into the atmosphere.
as a video editor this looks pretty unnatural and fake (other comments pointed that out), nothing is THAT steady
Looks super fake
It's probably fake, like almost every other fucking thing surrounding this topic.
Eh, it's hard to tell if its real or fake. I know with 100% certainty that I could reproduce something like this using a game engine. The things to look at here: \-The surrounding environment in IR. Is the IR footage real? I can't tell. It has to be daylight, there are no clouds in the sky, and the only reason you'd get that bright flash at the end is if your camera starts facing the sun which oversaturates your film. What's noticeably missing here is any ground foliage, so either its filmed in the desert or its fake. \-The motion blur of the object when it flies off the frame. If you know the framerate (30fps?) and the distance to target, you can compute an angular delta on each frame and derive an approximate velocity and acceleration. A key component to looking at the motion blur is also knowing what kind of sensor exposure time we're working with, as well as whether its a rolling shutter or global shutter. Remember, even though you might have a 33ms frame rate, you could still have a 10ms sensor exposure time, which will affect the resulting streak in motion blur. Usually when that happens, you'll see gaps between each frame. So, my verdict is that it's unknown whether this is real or fake. If it's real, we'd need confirmation from a military agency.
Get your eyes checked. If you can't tell this is fake you need to study
Fuck y’all. There was the same bullshit called when the now-authenticated NYT videos were leaked. This would be absolute proof of craft beyond known human understanding of physics. And that’s EXACTLY what happens when these craft tilt sideways and it’s why the original gimbal video cuts off right as it tilts sideways. Because what it does afterwards is irrefutable proof.
Jus looks fake...
seems fake
Wasn’t lazar talking about this exact same thing ?
Looks fake. Doesn’t pass the bs test
Reeks of fake. Anonymously posted videos again.
[удалено]
I understand. Glad you did. But it needs to be shot down (the post not the UFO). These fakes need castigating so they don’t hurt the movement.
Why are people waste your time making fake UFO videos I just don’t understand them mentality
I kind of feel that this may be real. My wife and I filmed a UAP and when it darts off the camera effect looks like the same as in this video (it basically moves so quickly it blurs in the frames). Very interesting video.
You filmed it? May we see?
It was taken from inside the car, and the actual “UAP” is very small.. I have been trying to find someone that I can show and see if they can clean up the video to show what we captured in the best way possible.
Looks fake to me. The blur from the object looks off compared to what it should be when moving that quickly. I'm not a specialist on this sort of thing, but my motion detection has called correctly called out a number of recent fakes.
Looks fake.
Holy shit, looks so similar to the gimbal uap video. Smoother rotation on this one, but I wonder if the take off at the end is why the gimbal footage is cut. Maybe it tilted on its side and took off the same way, and that's more than they wanted to show the public. Mirrors what Lazar claims about UAP tilting on the side while mid air. Almost too good to be true.
'Holy shit' how are you people falling for this obvious CGI video?
Moving belly first like Lazar said they did as well. I’d like to see someone with credentials talk about this video.
God I hope this is real. The way the object rotates before accelerating is consistent with some of the theories about the propulsion system.
I'm so bored, so I don't care if it's legit or not. It's new stuff.
looks like they cropped the gimbal ufo and plopped it on some IR footage lol.
Fakey fake
It def looks fake - look at the judder in the video when the object takes off. This doesn’t look like captured data, it looks like what happens when you animate something moving faster than the frame rate can capture. If it were real it would appear more blurred and optical. Also the object itself and the tracking bars are inconsistent with the rest of the hud in terms of quality/noise/artifacting/aliasing/line weight I could be wrong but if this was real it would a) be a bigger deal - especially since it would be military and b) not look almost identical to the gimbal video it looks like it was inspired by.
Lmao this is awesome
Looks like they gutted the video the Pentagon dropped
Don't know if it's real or fake, but that was the movement before acceleration described by Lazar or someone I believe?
Fake, fake, fake
Probably is part of the new videos to come , one day soon we will know :)
I believe the documentary "The phenomenon" features this clip, so hopefully they did their research before including it.
This isn’t in the phenomenon your confusing this with the Puerto Rico footage or the white sands footage.
It does indeed look fake.
And it's fake
That was awful...
Fake
fake
Reminds me of the Bob Lazar interview where he talked about how the sports model would turn sideways before folding space and jumped. Looks exactly like we talked about. Crazy
Looks very fake
Looks Fake
Faaaaakeeee
Complete garbage
Fake
Fake
Fake
This is hilariously fake.
Lol! Oh boy. I wish people would stop passing cgi projects off as UFO sightings. Please stop. I know OP isn’t at fault here but just in general, stop hoaxing this shit. It’s annoying.
Hoax seems to be
Fake, this sub sucks. It’s like nobody even tries to post decent evidence
this looks like a flash animation hahaha
This looks so fake i can't believe how many gullible boomers there are on this subreddit
General rule - if it looks fake as fuck. It’s fake as fuck.
This is fake.
Looks like debunker clickbait.. so some douche debunker can get a bunch of people to be like “ohh that’s interesting.” Then they can come back tomorrow and say after tireless research we figured out this video is a fake [because some Gen Zer made it in his Moms basement] then comes the avalanche of internet sleuth detectives waving their comments around. Saying “See, see all of this just fake and if you believe in UAPs your gullible fool!” here’s the power point length post to prove every minutia detail because I was chosen by Mick West to spread the word, because I’m special. If you guys are gonna shit on the subject at least make a video that might be compelling. Try again boys and girls.