# Misidentifying Normal Video and Blaming UFOs

Thunderfoot has more analysis of the mistakes made by some in the US military, US government in analyzing videos.

– Regular planes look like blobs in infrared imaging.
– They are saying that things are disappearing when they are flying over the horizon

SOURCES- Thunderfoot, Pentagon
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

### 53 thoughts on “Misidentifying Normal Video and Blaming UFOs”

1. Link provided below by Poppycock:
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939/htm
" he results of the nested sampling analysis are listed in  Table 1 . The uncertainties in the logZ estimates (not listed) were on the order of one or less. We see that Model 4, which describes the motion of the UAV as a constant acceleration to the left and away from the observer for the first 15 frames (approximately 0.53s
) is the most probable solution with acceleration components of a
x
=−35.64±0.08g
and a
z
=67.04±0.18g
for an overall acceleration of about 75.9±0.2g
. While Model 4 describes the data well, the residuals indicate that a more precise model would consist of multiple episodes of acceleration and deceleration during the maneuver. This was observed in SCU’s analysis [ 22 ] where the accelerations were estimated to vary from around 40 to 80 g."

80g. FYI, max g force of those F-18 hornets are about 7g.

" However, it should be noted that even equipment can only handle so much acceleration. For example, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II has maintained structural integrity up to 13.5g
[ 31 ]. Missiles can handle much higher accelerations. The Crotale NG VT1 missile has an airframe capable of withstanding 50g
and can maintain maneuverability up to 35g
[ 32 ]. However, these accelerations are still only about half of the lowest accelerations that we have estimated for these UAVs"

2. You DID read the article posted where the IR data was analzyed of the Nimitz video, correct? the one that showed that the craft had an acceleration of 80g? Know any planes that can turn their pilots into pancakes? Those hornets can pull about 7 g's, *tops*

3. Except that isn't what happened. Even remotely. The footage has been leaked piecemeal by various organizations and individuals, piecemeal, over several years. And none of them have been pilots. The DoD has stated they are legitimate and that they are a concern for personnel.

4. This dude is full of it and is nothing but a troll. Now he is saying he agrees that none of them claimed it was aliens despite saying otherwise right above.

5. What available data? A few leaked IR images that only have the sensor data and some parallax extrapolations? The rest is, so far, classified and is enough that the Pentagon has started taking it seriously. You know. The department that has all of the information.

6. They also said that those things manifested incredible flying patterns that defied physics, while the behavior was incredibly mundane once you focused on the available data.

7. Then we agree, because it is definitely not aliens

8. Then we agree, because it is definitely not aliens

9. You could literally make the same observation about any profession and try and use it as evidence that they don't know what they are doing. Unless you have some hard data on it, claiming that Navy pilots are incompetent based off anecdotal claims is silly.
Example:
"A few surgical techs had to show the surgeons how to use the laproscopic camera."
Well, I mean, obviously surgeons are just idiots that don't know what they are doing. Stupid logic.

10. This dude is a troll and Thunderf00t is a twit that is full of himself that ignores facts to "bust" others. His SpaceX "cost" videos are some.

11. I find it funny that the only people claiming it's aliens are the ones screaming "It's not aliens"

12. Not once did I see any of them claim this is aliens…

13. Like I said- most that dismiss this stuff aren't seeing the forest through the trees. It isn't just the IR footage(which we are being given apparently blurry copies), which itself is a little odd. It's the pilots accounts- multiple even in the same instance. The radar techs, weapons officers and apparently sonar techs.
Thunderf00t is full of himself. The fact that he claims to be an IR expert because he uses them daily is proof enough of that.

14. Not all of them are. Puerto Rico, Mexico and a few other nations have released similar videos.

15. What? That makes zero sense. Geese fly 30 mph. Jets fly at over 400mph and above.
Pilots, radar techs and weapons officers aren't going to get this excited over birds.

16. What? Where? Who and how often? Source?

17. People aren't seeing the forest for the trees. Thunderf00t is a master at this- he even claims that "working with IR every day" makes him an expert. Yea, my son uses an iPhone every day, it doesn't make him an expert of smart phones.
I don't think trained pilots, the DoD and service personnel (including radar and sonar techs and weapons officers) would get so worked up over BIRDS.

18. Thunderf00t specifically claimed to be an expert using IR because he "uses them every day". My son uses an iPhone every day. That doesn't make him an expert.

19. Your assessment is reasonable so I don't know why so many thumbs down. People aren't seeing the forest for the trees. Thunderf00t is a master at this. I don't think trained pilots, the DoD and service personnel would get so worked up over BIRDS.

20. This is the crux of the matter. These aren't yokels out in the country. These are professionals that handle this equipment every day saying we are seeing something that doesn't make sense. Thunderf00t isn't seeing the forest for the trees.

21. None. He is making that up. They've all said "we don't know what these are" and that is true.

22. I have seen almost every video on the matter. Interviews and otherwise. No one- not Fravor, not Dietre, not Elizondo, nor anyone in the intelligence community- has claimed these are hard evidence of aliens.

23. Mr. Triple A, debunking professional debunkers with suspect British accents is not how science works. The card stacking employed by Thunderdoofus completely ignores and discounts the eyes on observations of military pilots. Finally, who are the "they" who are assuming it was aliens? A spurious strawman on your part?

24. It was real. A real duck, real planes, and real stars, all incorrectly described as UFOs by real people that did not even try to identify them, because they already believed it was aliens

25. It also works like this:
1) people see something that don't understand and think it is aliens
2) someone points out it is not aliens and demonstrates it is not aliens
3) people can't accept they deceived themselves or that they have been deceived and develop a very complex narrative to say that the irrefutable debunking is part of a conspiracy to hide the existence of aliens (for which they do not have proof, because the proof has been disproved)

26. If you check the debunking videos from thunderf00t they all contain extracts from interviews on fox news, msnbc and other networks. Those people are being interviewed as experts on the subject. I personally do not consider them expert in anything, but they are defined experts. I am pretty sure you can still find the full videos on the different networks.
I hope it helps.

27. From my understanding the general "feeling" is that this is a real phenomena that they have Absolutely no idea what they are. They are NOT claiming they are aliens.

28. 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

29. What "experts" are claiming this as hard evidence of aliens?

30. Unpopular opinion, but that felt pretty intentional to me

31. The videos that have been released have been considered by the "experts" hard evidence of aliens. Not a single voice stood out saying "hey I am not convinced by those videos, but here there is better stuff", Now the videos have been very easily debunked with just a bit of math that a 14yo could understand. And all of a sudden people shout "but what about all the other evidence?".
There are two competing propositions here:
1) extraterrestrial life exists ->evolved into intelligent life->that developed a civilization->that developed interstellar capabilities-> that by chance brought aliens close enough to us to notice us->convinced them to study us->always remaining secret->while all the other existing alien civilizations decided to remain secret too in the whole universe
2) intelligence life is extremely rare and might occur one or very few times in the whole history of the observable universe ->intelligent life on earth is not perfect and sometimes some people get confused and believe they saw aliens when it was something mundane.
Regards

32. I won't find youtubers trying to convince me that the US government is trying to trick us? Really?
What youtube are you using and how to I access it?

33. Many a US Navy avionics tech have stories of showing pilots how to turn on their equipment.

34. Both Thunderf4IL and Mick West are just as much grifters as any other Youtube personality. They have a product – dismissing the unusual – and an audience that they sell this too.
Thunderf00t for example gets most of his views by stubbornly dismissing anything that SpaceX does, in particular the very concept of reusable rockets.
That said, if John Brennan, President Obama, and the DoD are trying to convince me of something I immediately assume the opposite. This entire UAP flap is obviously some incredibly tiresome US government propaganda piece. You won't find Youtube debunkists ever coming to this conclusion – the idea of the government trying in some way to trick you is inconceivable to them.

35. Media misdirection is propaganda on behalf of the Oligarchy.

36. Yeah when I see an explanation for radar for how they go from hundreds of feet to 80000 than yeah they aren’t debunked.
Honestly funny that when some people can’t explain something they’d rather find a bunch of reasons it’s all fake.
I do hope they come out with clearer pics and vids. They have to have them.
I do agree if these vids by themselves were the only evidence than its shaky, but there’s so much more

37. This is the same US Navy that regularly fails to see 50 000 tonne cargo ships until they run right into them.

They aren't infallible.

38. Really Brian? How about the specifics of what was misidentified. We have legit eye witness testimony of objects moving in ways that defy current U.S. technological capabilities – supported by video and infrared from F-15’s ( I think) – basically the same technology used to track known arial threats in our airspace. Your previous article points out how difficult it is to re-engineer more advanced technology by trailing human organizations. What is the deal here? Sure, I am not saying to make definitive declarations of aliens – but, these objects seem to be quite definitive. Even the “drones” for which there was no released video, buzzing a US carrier group off California. I mean.. who built those drones. Can I invest in that company?

39. You are ignoring the pilots. They didn't misidentify the videos. They were eyes on. Anyone can claim anything in the video and if it stood alone, might have reasonable success. But they do not stand alone. Every 'debunk' so far ignores the pilots. BUSTED!

40. I was being snarky, myself, earlier, but I do admit that the videos we have so far are not the best resolution and that we need more hard evidence. That said, I also don't think the pilots are wrong. I don't necessarily believe it's extraterrestrial technology they're seeing, but I think the objects they are seeing are doing exactly what they appear to be doing. I'm not a scientist, but I don't think there's any reason to believe those objects are violating laws of physics. I just think they're violating laws of physics as we understand them. Those two things aren't synonymous. Whether we like it or not, there are still things outside the scope of our understanding. It's also not beyond the realm of possibility that we humans have had a eureka moment that has been kept classified for x, y or z reason.

41. For those reading this and still don't know how this works:
>Theory exists and has some valid points supporting it
>Release easily debunkable info about that theory
>Make the info mainstream
>Before making the debunking mainstream extract the resources you need (money) and gather data on the psychological experiment
>Make the debunking mainstream
>Now you have successfully dismissed all arguments of that theory even though the debunking focused only on a few arguments.

This is basically it. Same thing for domestic terrorism, climate change… Every major movement is controlled or steered in some way by intelligence agencies, this is a fact. There is plenty of info about how this operations were done a few decades ago, they only got more advanced.
I recommend taking a lot at this documentary, you will think differently after seeing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation

42. Mass distraction.

43. Yes the videos are junk. But that still leaves the personal and radar accounts from the Nimitz very hard to explain.

44. Notice that all of these videos are coming from the DoD. No one else, either private individuals or other military services (Chinese, Russian, etc.) are coming forward with such sightings, particularly cell phone videos. I think some kind of agenda is being pushed.

45. No, but motion is relative: if you stand still or move just a little (lets say at the speed of a duck) while I am moving very fast while trying to keep tracking you then the apparent effect is that you are moving really fast away from me