Debunking UFO Videos from the Pentagon

Thunderfoot analyzed some of the Pentagon UFO videos.

He looked at the height of the plane, worked out the height of the object and determined the speed of the object. His analysis seems to indicate the US fighter was able to autotrack a bird flying at high altitude. This could be an actual wild goose chase.

Other Pentagon videos are misidentification of planes.

We need to get the videos that they claim are better. Higher resolution is needed.

The “experts” did not have good understanding of how cameras work, the tracking capabilities of their plane, angles and altitude.

The fact that these are all blurry and there seems to be confusion or mistakes in measuring speed seems to explain what has been released so far.

The US personnel screwing up massively with bad math, makes sense. The blurry bird looking like the object makes sense.
The US gear being so good that it track a bird is interesting.

The other experts could still have good evidence, but the UAP side needs to provide better evidence.
They need to show synchronized video, radar and at least some high resolution evidence. The claims that something was in one location and then moved quickly needs to be confirmed with better evidence.

I have not seen any video that confirms the ultrafast movement and extreme acceleration.

SOURCES – Thunderfoot
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

68 thoughts on “Debunking UFO Videos from the Pentagon”

  1. To think a human in real time isn't going to be making mistakes – come on. It is much easier to analyze after the fact, like we see in the video. As systems get more and more complex, much more is handled by the plane and the computerized system itself. It is the system that identifies and locks onto objects, after all.

    Reply
  2. Hah, same. But it was a sea lion/seal/otter not even sure, small little guy. I have it on video. Clearly looks like two lumps and I was all the way zoomed in – providing zero scale. Poor quality, obviously. But it sure made for a great 'prototypical' Nessie video.

    Reply
  3. It's not necessarily exaggerated AT ALL. To think that the US government has to be the expert in the room is laughable. Not to mention, he isn't alone in this. This is Occam's razor at work, and plenty of people are claiming the same thing.

    Reply
  4. Give it up. Latest release is radar screen footage correlated to FLIR footage. You don’t have a clue. West or Thunderankle.

    Reply
  5. Her actual explanation was:

    • clouds of insects in the air,
    • building up static electrical charge as they fly,
    • electric discharge produces visible glows
    • the actual point of the electrical discharge can move around within the insect cloud at the speed of lightning (literally), with apparently instant acceleration etc.
    • electric discharge produces a signal on radars, infra red, human eyes etc.
    • produces hums, crackles and other weird noises.
    Reply
  6. "…very large machine with unexplainable invisibility".

    It's possible that the "large machine" (a LINAC to charge the air ?) was hidden in plain sight on a ship/sub/island.

    "Personally, I think the best explanation I've heard was from Dr. Bambi in the X-files."

    Can't remember all the details of that episode, but I agree when alien robot probes do reach Earth they will be insect analogs 🙂

    Reply
  7. Well then we are left with the question of why we can't see the large structure/device that is surrounding the visible object and subjecting it to said large force (whether electrostatic, magnetic or otherwise.

    It changes the mystery from "small craft with unexplainable movement" to "very large machine with unexplainable invisibility".

    Personally, I think the best explanation I've heard was from Dr. Bambi in the X-files.

    Reply
  8. "To have an independently flying object that can accelerate itself at 5000g (for any reasonable deltaV) is outside our engineering capability."

    Ok, I agree that a vehicle accelerating to 5000g by itself is a stretch. However, what if the object was very light and had a large force applied on it from the outside? What if this was an electrostatic force involving a couple of Coulombs of charge ?

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/239848/how-much-is-a-coulomb-really

    Reply
  9. To accelerate something at 5000g, while within a large machine that can apply a huge force to it, is not outside our engineering capability.
    To have an independently flying object that can accelerate itself at 5000g (for any reasonable deltaV) is outside our engineering capability.

    Reply
  10. I am also ready for them to debunk the debunking. Provide the better analysis. Show the spots in the videos of the object moving 13000 mph.

    Reply
  11. I am ready to believe. Release the better videos. There is supposed to be a public report. I will eagerly cover it.

    Reply
  12. They need to match up the testimony with the videos that back it up and model the speed of the plane with the ground and the object. Let us get the good videos out and the verification of the testimony. They have already spent $22 million on the investigation. There is more funding now. There is altitude and speed info in the videos. Just proving the anomolies should be super cheap $500K-$1M for comprehensive and thorough speed and movement info. The work should already have been done. If we can eliminate the birds, planes and camera illusions then we can get somewhere. Maybe just hire Adam Savage for a through Myth busting analysis.

    Reply
  13. "I think they were a bit to hasty to suggest the UAVs were of ET origin"
    They didn't suggest that. They just said it was a possibility.

    Reply
  14. Scientist? of what? he claims to be an IR expert because "works with the tech daily". that is not how you become an expert.

    Reply
  15. Thunderf00t is a sensationalist in a lot of ways. He omits information to stack the decks on his videos. For the record, his analysis of these videos are a non-argument since no one has claimed the performance claimed to be demonstrated by the IR data.

    Reply
  16. Uh, yes he does hide. He has omitted information before to stack the decks on his videos (which are humorously labelled with attention-grabbing bright letters like a 5 year old). Such as omitting the relative costs of an F9 to falsely calculate the cost savings of reuse.

    Reply
  17. It was tracked by infra red, visual, by radar, by Ageis cruisers , by the fleet, and by subs. They dropped 80,000 feet in a sec on radar. A whole air wing tracked this. Ground radar saw this. Did you read their accts? These are professionals trained in identification with tools you could not dream of. And this happens weekly. Who do I trust, a wing commander that has nothing to gain from this or you? Not you.

    Reply
  18. You might want to look up radar ducting. Essentially, under certain atmospheric conditions, the pulse goes out twice as far and returns in phase and with an big enough amplitude. The radar interprets the pulse as having reflected from an object at half the distance, and you can track the object in on the radar, until you get eyes on where it should be and realize there's nothing there. I've experienced it myself in the the Eastern Mediterranean, where it's most frequently reported.

    That being said, those atmospheric conditions rarely occur off the coasts of the US and have no bearing on video.

    Reply
  19. But, the question is, the military has thousands of "experts" that have equal or greater ability than this "Thunderfoot". Did not these military and government "experts" who have experience taking apart video data in search of evidence of Russian and Chinese technology also do such simple analysis as well? Surely, if the government think these objects are "real" they would have run everything through the best supercomputers and the best Physicists and scientists that they have access to.

    Reply
  20. The math disproves the video. Motion is relative, if I maneuver fast around you, it looks like you are maneuvering fast around me. If I have a wrong estimate of your size, it will appear that you are closer of more distant than what you are giving incorrect speed reading. If you do not agree point out with a math analysis were the math analysis debunking the video was wrong.

    Reply
  21. When technical misunderstandings occur in both civil and military theatres – the investigative system follows a rigorous chain that would always lead back to the equipment manufacturer where any events defy explanation. To suggest that you know better than all the people who would have been involved in that investigation process (including the relevant manufacturers) using the tone of language and the turn of phrase that you did – possibly suggests to me that either you have a bias going into your own investigation, you have an undisclosed agenda or your own scientific prowess is perhaps over exaggerated.

    Reply
  22. Many of the UFO "detections" come after a new detection system was started to use. I think that a bad use of the gear is the most probable explanation.

    Reply
  23. The entire debunking video hinges on fighter pilots not understanding relative motion, not understanding trigonometry, lense effects,… or the limitations of FLIR, and have no experience with the motion of birds. Their life depends on all these things. Maybe he should read an introductory book into fighter pilot training, any book written by a professional, and wonder what pilots typically see in an average day on the job flying at them at all altitudes, distances and speeds. Besides that he ignores the testimonies of the pilot discussing their footage. It is not debunking, it is just posturing.

    Reply
  24. 80k to sea level "instantly" you say? That would be quite the IR signature and visible to the naked eye.

    Hmm maybe it recharges its batteries by absorbing the heat produced when its EM drive takes it down to sea level.

    Reply
  25. Math debunked the videos, math easily understandable by a 14 yo kid with basic knowledge of geometry. Thunderfoot is the guy that just run the calculations. The videos are from one year ago. None of the expert on the UFO side gave a mathematical analysis explaining why thunderfoot analysis was wrong. All I hear is always about other angles, other stories, other testimonies and so on.
    Someone demonstrated those the specific claims on those specific videos do not stand up. If you think those videos show aliens explain where the debunking analysis is wrong.
    This is how science works

    From the abstract of the paper you attached:

    "The extreme estimated flight characteristics reveal that these observations are either fabricated or seriously in error, or that these craft exhibit technology far more advanced than any known craft on Earth. In many cases, the number and quality of witnesses, the variety of roles they played in the encounters, and the equipment used to track and record the craft favor the latter hypothesis that these are indeed technologically advanced craft."

    They assumed it was aliens from start, they did not verify it was aliens.
    I too can write a very quantitative paper on the metabolic requirements of a pegasus given his mass and wingspan, but that does not prove that flying horses do actually exist

    Reply
  26. Motion is relative: if I am tracking you and I climb in altitude it appears that you will go down compared to the background, if I have a wrong estimate of your distance (which can usually happen for some incomprehensible signal whose real dimensions are unknown) the relative motion can give crazy numbers. Tracking systems usually assume that something that is at their limit of sensitivity is really far away (because that is their purpose: to spot and track and enemy before they could do the same to you), if something is way smaller than expected they will have to be way closer to be tracked, the final effect is that you see something zipping around while it is actually you that are trying to maneuver to keep a lock on something that is almost stationary compared to your speed, but since you are on a plane you cannot actually lower your speed below a certain point or you will stall.

    Reply
  27. Thunderfoot or Thunderf00t does not hide, he is a well known and reputable chemist and physicist. a google search of one sec gives his real name: Philip E. Mason.
    He run the math on the videos and numbers don't lie. You can be an admiral, or a 6th grade kid. Math is math, you do it correctly and you get results that other people can verify, Those videos are debunked by math, thunderfoot is just the guy that pointed it out. As nations from all over the world have aviation and stealth research I expect some of the UFOs will be attributed to military tests. Then you have people misidentifying birds, stars and planes.

    Reply
  28. Everyone has a smartphone these days with a reasonably good quality camera. Yet the best photographic evidence of UFOs remain grainy and blurred

    Reply
  29. I think they were a bit to hasty to suggest the UAVs were of ET origin. There are too many people here and elsewhere that are letting their confirmation biases get in the way of forming proper conclusions and aren't allowing the data to guide their thinking.

    For instance, they estimated peak accelerations over 5000 Gs for the UAVs and then went on to suggest that this was outside of our current engineering capabilities. However, basic online research would have shown them that:
    1) Electronics in "smart" artillery shells can withstand shocks up to 15500 Gs,
    2) The maximum acceleration of race car engine pistons can be high as 8600 Gs.
    Also, that the Z-machine could generate 350000 GW of pulsed power.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(acceleration)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_Pulsed_Power_Facility#Prospects

    Reply
  30. Ok, i just watched the videos. Its a good sounding debunking. But the off the coast of California navy group “drone” testimony was eye witnessed at close range. For a period of over an hour.

    Reply
  31. You don’t think experienced military pilots can judge distance and acceleration? Flight characteristics? They have cockpits you know – they are looking as well as using sensors on these objects.

    Reply
  32. Are you suggesting that these UFOs are being built and flown by the Flat Earthers who are keeping it secret because otherwise everyone would be able to see the shape of the planet?

    Reply
  33. Ok, fair. That said, you have not seen or have made observations that military personnel have. To say the military is prone to … bad math? Was that your argument? Seems a stretch. One pilot on some interview claimed 2 years of observation of the same kind of areal phenomena off the US Atlantic coast. That navy video – sorry, not a bird. Infra-red, clear movement without exhaust (leave the 600g acceleration argument behind) – so, based on that, what would be the hypothesis? I guess drone – some kind of air channeling thrust – I guess? I mean, a stretch. I would like to invest in that drone company.

    Reply
  34. Addendum….I could be very wrong…UFO Technology is forbidden because the technology would be the END of Oil! Oil is Internationally linked to the Dollar…I think that there was an effort to go to the Petro-Euro, and I think that very bad things happened to the promoter….Just a conspircay theory. Note see: Three Days of the Condor…read between the lines. It took me a while to understand the CIA assasination group behind the oil plot. RJK Chiralex, Doylestown PA=Don t mess with International Bankers…I was at a special meeting once!

    Reply
  35. expert pilots and the likes are mistaking ducks for aliens then the US military is in a lot worse shape than I thought!

    Reply
  36. Maybe there was a breakthrough during the waning years of Cold War by someone? There was an interesting article on the War Zone that referenced a 1983 NASA paper on beamed/field propulsion using known physics (see links below).

    I'm now leaning towards the Tic-Tac (2004 Nimitz "UFO") being an ultralight drone that uses a 1 GeV electron beam generated electrostatic cloud together with active drag reduction to propel itself to over Mach 10 in short bursts. For longer, slower trans-oceanic crossings more conventional duct fans might be used.

    I base this on the craft/concepts presented in Figure XllI-2 ,Figure XllI-3, Figure XllI-7 in the paper and this line: "..(c) by providing large numbers of pointed grids attached to the smooth vehicle exterior surface, to preferentially enhance corona discharge in the aft direction." This feature seems to jive with the description given by some US Navy witnesses who reported pointed structures like in this recreation https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/USS_Nimitz_2004_tic_tac_UFO.jpg

    People comment that we have nothing that can travel that fast or nothing that can withstand the g-forces involved, but the Sprint ABM could do Mach 10 back in the 1960s and Formula 1 engine pistons can experience over 8000 Gs.

    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33859/blasting-the-air-in-front-of-hypersonic-vehicles-with-lasers-could-unlock-unprecedented-speeds

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19850024873/downloads/19850024873.pdf

    Reply
  37. Shelving the idea of ETs for a moment: There are people who, if the technology for us to quickly move about the universe were to be real, would find themselves mentally broken. Because, they were taught for most of their lives, that it can't be possible, and that we couldn't figure it out. Well, some people can't handle having to go back and learn the science they were taught, differently. And that's okay! There's nothing at all wrong with that. Nothing. But, that doesn't make those people any more correct than the U.S. DoD and the Navy saying, "This is happening."

    But, honestly, don't be mentally broken. It's okay. Just let it happen. Just let things turn out not to be what you've been taught your entire life. That's also okay.

    Reply
  38. Thunderfoot…why must he hide. Underwater data recorded by our US NAVY and other non-aircaft information is merely IGNORED. Also..the "almost daily sightings off
    the coast of Virginia for 2 years"…..call the Audabon Society. Debunkers and Skepto-paths will love this as well as those who subscribe to the Skeptical Inquirer! Ron Kita, Chiralex USA Doylestown PA

    Reply
  39. All I see with Thunderfoot is calling the evidence suspect without any attempt to actually study the physics of the sightings. Yeah, the military pilots don't have a good idea of how their equipment work. Here is some actual analysis of the physics with some credible conclusions. Really, this is what Brian should be presenting, not vague generalizations from some anonymous hack. https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939/htm

    Reply
  40. I hope so. The alternative is that the military is so incompetent that they think the UFOs are real, and are funding quack science in an attempt to recreate the tech they think the UFOs have. I'm really hoping there is someone in charge pulling these strings, and it's not just horrible incompetence that goes all the way to the top…

    Reply
  41. Thunderfoot might be extremely annoying and snarky, but he is a reputable scientist and his math analysis are usually spot on. Furthermore the analysis on the alien footage was very basic.

    Reply
  42. yeah my Occam's razor detector is going off like crazy here. Its disappointing to think that no one in the military nor in the media has been offering up this analysis and I had to find it at nextbigfuture. Don't the military understand their own camera technology and how to correctly track the speed of a moving object from another moving object? Isn't it a bit of a tell that these UFO's dip in and out of the water? What other mundane flying intelligent beings, other than aliens, behaves that way on earth? Its a bit silly to not even entertain the idea that its birds. Those flying triangles we saw in the sky? The aperture blades on the camera lens create perfect shapes like that when they defocus on an object. Its called Bokeh and its a well known phenomenon in optics. I'm open to these UFOs being aliens and allegedly the military has high resolution images of these things, or so I hear. Release those images. Give us better corroborative proof from multiple independent observations of the same event.

    Reply
  43. Okay Brian, I do not know what this is all about, but I was in the military. I have been on maneuvers and seen things that would scare the crap out of you and anyone at Thunderfoot. And we were not encountering birds out there… BTW – who are these dweebs anyway? A bunch of video marketing guys ??? How do we know they are not pulling off a Great Fake here? The biggest tell is you're attempting to use them to marginalize the most credible and highly trained people on the planet? You're actually trying to tell a bunch of week minds that Fighter Pilot can't tell a bird from a Piloted Vehicle moving at hundreds of miles an hour? Multiple fighter pilots!!! I have watched the interviews of these pilots and corroborating CIC navy personnel, and there is absolutely no doubt they are regularly encountering these vehicles, and tracking them on instruments "thunderfoot" could only dream of… This is really happening, and the sightings are increasing, so why are you parading out every flake on the internet to marginalize our pilots and other highly trained military personnell??? Who are you really working for?

    Reply
  44. thunderfoot is not always right. I think he is wrong about his analysis of SpaceX. However, it is good to consider the skeptics. His analysis is from the videos and his analysis of altitude, angles and speed seems to be right. The pro-UFO side has to show the movement analysis and extrapolate the size etc… Also, the lack of high resolution imaging is a big problem. The only evidence being low resolution suggests consistent systemic error. The supporters of the UFO work will need to debunk the debunking.

    Reply
  45. Birds don’t change positions thousands of feet or miles within a second and radars don’t lie. These guys spend too much time trying to debunk everything they can’t explain.

    Reply
  46. Military report to the media only what they deem useful: if they track a foreign craft they might still officially pretend they did not detect it, because confirming the detection will give away their tracking capabilities. I assume that once in a while intelligence and counter intelligence might willingly push the media on a wild goose chase just to distract from something else…

    Reply
  47. The only reason people are paying attention to these reports is that military authorities have acknowledged them and not debunked them. Compared to many of the reports over the last 70 years, these reports are far less convincing. These military authorities are the same authorities that, for 70 years, have been denying the presence of aerial phenomena that represent a national security threat. There is overwhelming evidence these military authorities are not credible in their ability to accurately report the risk to national security of such aerial phenomena. That they now share with the public, in such a way, such poor evidence is, itself, evidence that, at best, all the top brass should be fired for incompetence. At worst…

    Reply
  48. Imagine the frustration of real scientists that see their budget cut in order to give the pentagon extra resources to go to the bottom of the wild goose interstellar threat…

    Reply
  49. He runs the math, and the math is the same for everybody "expert in ufos" or not. The other guys did not run the numbers. with a very simple trigonometric analysis you can get all the info you need.

    Reply
  50. I'm definitely warming to the idea that the recent government UFO talk is part of the same psyop as the crazy patents.

    Reply
  51. Thanks Brian, I honestly do not think that there are better videos. I believe that wrong diagnosis are always more likely than miracles and that mistakes/pranks/hoaxes and advancement in human technology can explain the UFO phenomena.
    We live in a world where people have hd cameras in their pocket and could stream in real time every strange thing they see (and no man in black could prevent you from uploading the stuff from a server outside their jurisdiction). The only UFOs footage available is always poor quality and usually a very short duration, probably because better quality would allow you to understand the phenomenon for what it is.
    I am pretty sure that the pilots of the fighters managed to figure out it was a bird, but the footage got cut either because it was revealing the capabilities of the tracking system or because somebody wanted to sell UFO angle,

    Reply
  52. It's extremely disturbing that our civilian and military leaders apparently take UFOs seriously based on this kind of shoddy evidence. It suggests a lack of mental seriousness or ability to get traction on dealing with ambiguous situations. Something we also saw during the pandemic on the civilian side and during the various recent wars on the military side.

    Reply
  53. When staying at a place on Loch Ness, I took some photos of the ducks at dawn swimming on the water. In the right light with no reference for scale, they sure look like Nessie is usually portrayed.

    Reply

Leave a Comment