What do the Navy UFO videos really mean?

00:00:08
Speaker 1: Listen everyone. I love getting your emails. No, no, I really do. That's why I answer all of them, usually right away. But recently I've been getting a lot of email asking about one particular topic, and of course it's a topic that's near and dear to my heart and one that I've talked about a lot on the show You Guessed It. It's aliens. Those crazy videos with the tic Tac ship and those pilots saying these things are everywhere, and it starts to feel like the opening scene of a science fiction movie on Netflix that you didn't mean to watch, but you can't turn off. The kind where the news reports weird events around the world while scientists are scoffing. So of course you want to know are today's scientists actually scoffing or are they preparing for the first Interstellar Physics Conference. Hi, I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist and I really really really want to believe in the aliens And Welcome to the podcast Daniel and Jorge Explain the Universe, a production of My Heart Radio in which we talk about all things alien, not just extraterrestrial intelligence, but the universe itself, which sometimes feels downright alien, with its weird quirks and strange neutron stars and potential alternate dimensions and weird emergent properties like space and time and general relativity and ice cream and hamsters and lava and all that crazy nonsense. We explain all of it to you. And one of the challenges of this universe is that it seems a little alien that we look at it and we don't quite understand why it is the way that it is. It seems different from the way that we expect from the fact that time isn't universal and velocity is purely relative to the weird randomness of quantum mechanics. We feel like we are living in a universe that we might not be able to understand. And that's why I personally am very much looking forward to the first Interstellar Physics Conference where we can hear about other intelligent beings and their struggles to understand the universe. It's my fervent hope that they have different struggles, that they worry about different things, that there are different things in the universe that they struggle to understand, and things that we struggle with they find simple, and so maybe they can explain them to us. Discovering alien intelligence would be so valuable, not just because we could learn physics, not just because they might give us insights into the deepest nature of the universe, but because it would directly answer one of the biggest questions in the universe. And that's, of course, are we alone? Is intelligent life unique to Earth or has it cropped up all over the galaxy. We just don't know the answer to that question. So people have been watching the skies, you know, for decades and for centuries, and we've all heard reports of flying saucers and easy things in the sky and crash laying things at roswell. But it's been sort of easy to dismiss because they come from people without a lot of credibility or telling tall stories. But recently there have been videos released from a much more credible source, not weird cranks on the radio at three am. We're talking about fighter jet pilots, people who have been through intense screening. They fly zillion dollar jets at supersonic speeds and they can drop death from eighty thousand feet, So they got to be clearheaded. These people have some credibility, and they've seen some weird stuff, and they got it on video, and they released it to the internet, and everybody is talking and a lot of those people are also emailing me to ask me, what do you think about these videos? So on today's podcast, we'll be asking the question, what do the Navy UFO videos really mean? This thing has percolated to the highest levels of our culture. Even Obama said, and I quote, there's footage and records of objects in the skies that we don't know exactly what they are. We can't explain how they move their trajectory. They did not have an easily explainable pattern, and so people take it seriously, trying to investigate and figure out what that is. He's not scoffing, he's not dismissing it. He's not saying alien conspiracy theories. He's saying, hey, there's stuff out there the US government does not understand. And the reason that it's so exciting, so tempting to believe that this might actually be aliens, is that it comes at the same time as we are understanding much more about the prevalence of life supporting planets around the galaxy. You know, only twenty five thirty years ago, we didn't know if there were planets around other stars, and so only recently have we actually known that there are planets all over the galaxy, and not just a few planets, but a lot of planets, billions and billions of planets, lots and lots of Earth like planets. We now estimate the twenty of every star in the galaxy see has an earth like planet. So that's a lot of potential places for life to start. But of course we take a clear eyed view on this podcast. We don't know that just because there are lots of places for life to start, that life has started in lots of places. It could be very, very rare. It could be that we are the only ones, and though there are billions of opportunities, it's a once in many billions kind of thing. We also don't know if there's intelligent life in all those places. It could be that there's life all over the galaxy, but it's mostly moss and algae and little microves, nothing that would make a ship and fly all the way over here and scare our navy pilots. But it makes us wonder, because there are so many places for life to live. We wonder have they come to visit? Is this them coming to visit. But on the podcast, of course, we don't just speculate. We dig into it. We delve deep to try to find some real answers. So on today's podcast we have a very special guest, someone who will tell us exactly how to look at these videos and what they mean. All right, well, it is my absolute pleasure to welcome the podcast Nick West, who is the founder of metabunk dot org, a forum about the debunking of conspiracy theories, and the author of Escaping the rabbit Hole how to Debunk conspiracy Theories using fact, logic and respect because a long history and as deep expert in these questions and topics, and recently wrote an op ed in USA Today about these very videos. So Nick, thank you very much for joining us today and for sharing your expertise with us. Thank you for having me very glad to be here. Could you tell us a little bit first about your background, how you got into this game of debunking crazy ideas, What did you about it, and what is your expertise. Well, my deep expertise going back a long time is I'm a video game programmer, which may not say on sound like particularly relevant stuff, But what idea is a video game program, but was programming a couple of things. One is computer graphics, which is how you say a kind of a model of the world, a three D model of the world, and you create two D images, so you have some kind of internal representation of the world, and then you translate that to the screen. And the other thing I did is physics, which is, you know, probably not quite the physics that you have, the advanced physics that you talk about a lot of the time, but relatively simple stuff like mechanics, the laws of motion and velocity and acceleration and things like that, because we have to simulate objects within the games flying around in this three D world, and in my case, it was a skateboarding game Tony Hawks Pro Skater, and so you you would model things like the skater rolling up hills and jumping off ramps and things like that, so you're familiar with the basics of how to calculate things like acceleration and velocity and collisions and force and mass and things like that. In the aliens ever appear in these Tony Hawk skiing games, they do, actually, yes, And in one of the games, there's actually an area fifty one where we have a flying sourcer and you can actually this cheat codes where you can play as an alien. But this is all completely unrelated to my later interests, So you know what was What happened with how I got from A to B from the video games to debunking flying sources was after I kind of sent my retired from the industry. I was just working as a consultant for a while, and I had a lot of spare time, and I was doing things that I found personally interesting, and I was learning to fly, and I got interested in conspiracy theories, and in particular, this is one called the chem trails conspiracy theory, which is the idea that the government is secretly spraying trails behind planes to poisonous or change the weather or the climate. And I got really into doing stuff like tracking down the planes and you can actually look them up an online databasis. But there's also a lot of the mathematics I talked about in the video games coming very handy there, because instead of taking a three D image and turning into the two D, you're taking a two D image and turning it into three D. You've got to kind of interpolate and extrapolate things a bit more because you've only got two dimensions, but it's the same kind of video spatial reasoning that you use, and so I got good at doing that with contrails, and then that kind of lead naturally, there a bunch of other conspiracy theories to the UFO stuff, and people started sending me pictures of UFOs and videos of UFOs, and I started getting into tracking down what these things actually were, what we're being shown in these videos and these photos, and I just find it a lot of fun and it's really interesting. And so you got interested in these conspiracy theories because you were worried about chem trails and contrails, or because you were interested in the whole phenomenon of conspiracy theories. I'm interested in figuring things out, and so I like to figure out what's actually going on. And you know, you're look into something like the chemtrails conspiracy theory, it becomes readily apparent, fairly quickly, there's nothing to it. I mean, I didn't really think there was anything to it to start off with, but people make a claim of evidence and they say, you know, contrals shouldn't persist or something. You'll look it up. When you find that other contrails canvases. That was obviously nonsense. So I kind of enjoyed tracking down things like that, and I also enjoyed explaining is the people and it's you're not knowing, it's like an aha, I got your type way, But more just how do you get across to people what the reality is and if they have a misconception about something, how do you explain what that misconception is. So it's been a fun challenge for me. And I've even dabbled in talking to people who think the Earth is flat, which is always makes you interesting conversations, but it also touches upon real issues of geometry essentially like an optics and how you perceive the world, which again goes back to the video game, a thing of you know, you've got three D two D. It's just all things that have interested in me and I generally I'm viewed as a debunker of conspiracy theories because when I look into them, they tended not to hold up to scrutiny. As I'm looking into things like flat Earth or you know nine eleven was an inside job with an ano thermity. You look into things like that and they don't hold up, so I end up essentially, you know, debunking things. But that's not what I'm setting out to do. I'm setting out to figure out what's actually going on. Well, it seems to me a very natural extrapolation from what we do in physics all the time, taking a set of data and trying to use it to build a model of the universe that's coherent and consistent and that stands up to examination from multiple perspectives. And here you're taking, you know, a two dimensional image and trying to understand more deeply what's actually going on. But it seems like a natural extension of that as well. And I just have to add for our listeners that I discovered when I was looking into your background that you and I have another connection, which is that this Camp Trails paper was actually written with a close friend of mine. Here you see, I Steve Davis, who was an established scientist. He told me that when you guys put out this paper, you've got a lot of how she'd say, popular pushback, Yeah, very much. So, like the paper is kind of consensus paper, essentially synthesizing consensus by asking scientists. And Steve did a lot more working than I did. I was just kind of helped formulate the questions and find photos and things like that. But we tried to reach out to as many scientists as possible, there were domain experts, and ask them, what do you think that this this photo represents secret spraying or something else? You know, and and you do you think these these test results represents something? And a lot of people thought that we were joking and they were the email back and say, you know what is this? You know what's going on here by you even doing this and this This is a common problem in addressing pseudo scientific claims is that genuine scientists do not want to waste time with these things. So you don't get people investigating the claims of kempshell believers or nine eleven believers, or even like UFO believers, and so it can creates this false illusion of balance or no balance in a way like that they think that they have all the science on their side because there's no rebuttals to that science. But the reason there's no rebuttals is that the serious scientists think that these claims don't even deserve addressing. But then I come in there and I started trying to address them. Some of these claims, And of course I'm just essentially a lay person who's good at looking of things in Google and good at doing three D geometry, but you know, I'm not not a scientist. So it's always been a problem of arguments from authority where you know, they say that they have science on their side, when really they don't, but they don't realize that. And you find that making these arguments carefully and clearly based on the penetrates somehow to these folks who believe these theories. Do you feel like there really are open to the evidence. It does people when presented with a clear explanation for something, they generally respond fairly well to it, but there's lots of factors that play into that whether it actually works or not. There's there's a thing in science communication called the backfire effect where if you give people information that's contrary to their beliefs, sometimes it makes them believe those things even more because they have to. They feel like they're in an other serial situation and they feel like they have to fight back. So if you attack their beliefs, it strengthens their belief because it's almost like are testing their belief And if you don't actually break through their wall of disbelief in your theory, then they think that they have one and they believe or the test of being challenged, and so it ends up not working. So you have to do it carefully. And this is another challenge that I have is is how do you communicate the reality of the situation to people who believe the opposite without making them believe that opposite thing even more. And that's something I talk about quite a bit in my book How to Treat People with Respect and get through to them. Well, I think that listeners to this podcast are sort of entranced by the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors and aliens in general, as am I of course, but also open to scientific explanations and eiger mostly to hear the truth to know what really is going on in the universe. Sometimes what we discovered by the universe is bonkers and hard to digest and can be stranger than aliens visiting. So we definitely need to keep our minds open to all sorts of crazy realities, but of course it needs to be supported by the science. So now let's turn to the videos. In questions only, if you could briefly describe to us what we see in these videos before we get into the process of how to analyze them and what we think they actually mean. Can you walk us through some of them? Sure? Those actually six videos that have been released over the last few years. So they kind of divided into two sets. The three older videos that are kind of seni official U. S. Navy videos, and then there's three more videos that were a lad more recently play to a filmmaker Jeremy Corbell, and he's released these. The first three ones are the ones that people talk about the most because they've been around for a while and that the Navy has actually said that they are official, and as you released official copies of them. There's three of them. They're called flear, go Fast, and gimball you these little little acronyms, which are actually the official names that they were given by the U. S. Navy. So I think these names actually have some meaning. But that's pretty much all that the Navy tells you about them. So each of these videos is a black and white video. They were all taken with a piece of equipment called the raytheon Act flair pot, which is an advanced targeting advanced targeting forward looking infra red I wish is you know, kind of fancy, but it's essentially it's just a big camera that's very good at zooming on things and tracking them. So it's just this targeting part essentially, the fits on the planes. And these are infrared videos, so not in the visible light. They're largely infrared. One of the videos has a section which is in what they call TV mode, which TV mode is just a regular a regular video, but it doesn't actually look that much different to the to the infrared. But most of the videos are just the infra red, so what you're looking at is heat. They're also a little confusing because what you see as heat shows up as black in these videos is in black hot mode most of the time in these videos, and so it's kind of confusing in terms of the feeling that you're looking at an actual object, because it seems like you're looking at a physical object when really you're essentially looking at a very bright light bright it would be a bright white light if you were looking at it, if you had infrared vision yourself, you would just see bright light coming from and you're not really seeing the shape of the object. What they show is like the Flear one kind of shows what looks like a distant object that kind of like bounces around a little bit, and you didn't see very much as very small and fuzzy. This is the one sometimes referred to as the tik tak. Yeah, sometimes refers to as a tik tak, although the shape in the in the video isn't really like a clean cut tik tak, is almost more like a peanut shape. It's kind of like it's a little waste in the middle. And this was something that it went along with an encounter and actual eyewitness encounter by pilots who actually saw something that they described as a TikTok, And then later another pilot took this video and said that it was, you know, the same thing that people assumed it was the same thing, but you know, it shows something off in the distance and it's not really moving in the video very much. But the other two videos do actually show motion, which is a lot more impressive. There's one called Go Fast, which looks like the camera is just a been looking down at the ocean surface and then this object whizzes interview and then the camera tries to track it and follow it and then eventually kind of locked on and then it starts following this object and it's whizzing really really fast across the ocean surface, at least that's what it looks like. And then the third video, gimbal, is the one I think that's the most visually impressive and people have often cited as being the most compelling. You have a video out there because it shows a flying surcer is what looks like a flying source which shows a kind of like a top type ship, almost almost diamonds shaped with a little bit rounded with like little spikes at the top from the bottom and on the end, and it looks like it's flying along over the top of some clouds, and then it looks like it slows down and then it does this weird rotation where it kind of rotates so it's almost like standing on its end, and then it rotates the past vertical and it seems to be hovering in that position about the clouds. So it looks really impressive. If you were looking for a video of a UFO flying is also doing something amazing, it seems like here it is almost like something you would put in the video game. And so to be clear, these three videos were sort of released together but they're not necessarily connected. Like the first one, the tic TAC one, the FLEAR one was an incident in two thousand four off the coast of southern California, whereas the other two were nearly ten years later, and we're taken by planes operating off the east coast. Yeah, that's right. There were eleven years later, I think in two thousand and fifteen. And the first earlier video of the FLIR video taking in two thousand and four was actually leaked in two thousand and seven, so it's actually been knocking around on the Internet and people have been looking at it and analyzing it for were well over a decade, so it's not like it's this new thing that has just suddenly been dropped by the US military. The other two videos that are connected, they were actually taken by the same weapon system operator on the same plane, the same pilots and everything. You can tell you there's information on the screen that matches, and the voices the same thing. It's so much newer video, but you know, it's still is still a few years old. But that one came out in at the end of two thousands and seventeen, and it was kind of leaked out by people who used to work in the Pentagon. There's a guy who you used to work in the Pentagon, and he says he worked on this program that studied unidentified aerial phenomena, which is the kind of the more politically correct term for the UFO is like UFO without all the baggage of little green men and flying scurces, but essentially talking about the same thing. It's unidentified flying objects and identified areal phenomena. So this guy, you know, he worked on this program which did some study of unidentified area but not phenomena, and he knew about these videos apparently, and then he worked to get them cleared for release and it kind of got them out. But there's some dispute about how they got out of the military. It wasn't entirely happy with it that they think that he misrest misrepresented what he was going to do with them. But you know, it's gonna be relevant really because they're out now and the military has said, you know, these are real things. They were taken by Navy pilots and they were classified as unidentified at some point. So here we are, and when we say real things, we mean the videos are videos taken by these airplanes. Now that the Navy or the government is saying what there are videos of the videos are real videos, it's what they're saying, and they show something. I mean that it's not like a son of simulation. There's something there. There are these white dots or these black dots represent actual things that were there, that were flying. Essentially, no one's suggesting that they are fake, but no one's also really well that the government isn't suggesting that they are alien flying sources. So those the first three videos, and then there were some new videos in two thousand nine. Yeah, there was this one came out called The Well. It doesn't really have an official name because it's not really an official video. They were all leaked to this filmmaker and a journalists to too several people. There's a filmmaker called Jeremy corbell In a Las Vegas journalist called George Knapp, who are kind of like partners in crime, a crime, but you know, the partners in their endeavor in releasing UPHO videos, and apparently they want to send them a bunch of UFO videos that were recorded by the U. S. Navy of by people on ships. US Native personnel. And so the first one is called the green Pyramid video, and it appears to show a flying green triangle that plays across the sky and it's it's flashing a little bit, and then its life passed two other flying green triangles, and everyone was amazed at this. It was described as the most incredible UFO video of all time, better than the gimbaled video because it showed an actual flying pyramid and people assume that's what it was because that's what it issues in the video. Then there was another one called the Omahaspea video, which shows a black heat source kind of this ending and then going behind the horizon. And then those the Omaha Radar video, which just shows by thirty seconds of a radar screen that shows some tracks on it and people are talking about them, and then not entirely show where they are. So those are the six videos, which sounds like a whole bunch of evidence, a lot of wonderful evidence for UFOs, but when you start digging into them, because the magic kind of falls away, all right, So we will dig into them in just a moment and talk about what your process is for how you analyze these and figure out what you think is going on. But first, let's take a quick break. All right, we're back and we're talking to Mick West about what's going on in these videos that the Navy has released that contain these strange objects that some people are claiming our evidence of aliens, and other people are more skeptical. So Mick is an expert in debunking these videos and understanding from a two D image what we are actually looking at. So, Mike, I want to hear about your process for how you take these things apart and understand what's likely going on. But first I want to share with you the results of a poll I gave to our listeners. I asked them this morning, what is the most likely explanation for the Navy UFO videos? And half of them said that it was nothing remarkable, a third said it was some secret military technology, thirteen percent of them said it was clear evidence of aliens, and five percent claimed it was likely manipulated video. So that's sort of a snapshot for where our listeners are in their minds, And so I think we'd love to hear about what your process is, how you analyze these videos, how you take them apart. Well, first of all, I think we can gond just count the last one that there are edited videos that being confirmed to be real videos taken by Navy personnel by the Navy, and in my analysis of it, I haven't found anything at all that suggests that they are fake in any way. They appear to be taken by pilots on planes or sailors on ships, and to represents something that that's actually showed up in the camera when they were filming it. But how do you know that the video itself is authentic, Like maybe the Navy believes it, but how do we know that the sailors themselves. Haven't you modified this data? Can you see like the metadata or somehow verified the authenticity of the digital You can't see the metadata, But just looking at the video, there's nothing at all to suggest in it that it was fate. They look genuine to me, you know, just in the very self consistem. If you do the analysis and what actually happened throughout the entire video, there's there's nothing that suggests anything that various is going on self consistent meaning for example, the reflections and the angles, the texture of the video, but it remains the same like when people added things you often see things like some areas of it, I have a different kind of noise in the background. I would look for lighting as one of the things that is fate, but you know, this is an infrared video, so it doesn't. There's nothing that suggests it from an infre prospective that there's anything going on or anything like the light comes from one part in in one point of the video and the other part and the other. You know, it's just nothing left out to me. It's difficult to test videos like this because there are almost no videos to compare them against. It's a classified system, the ALEO system, and so if you want to find a video to see, you know, here's a genuine APT flaw video, and here is this one maybe is fake. These are actually the best at FLE videos that we actually have available because the military does not release this type of footage. There's nothing at all. There's a better quality than the gimbal video or the go Fast video. So there's a great videos from from that perspective. So we should assume that the Navy has done some internal authentication to verify that they're not being duped by their own sailors, that they understand these systems better than we obviously do. So we have to just take their word for it that the US government is not purposely putting out things they know to be false and move on from there. I think definitely with the first three videos because they are Navy pilots and they would have had to have faced it in the cockpit essentially, because these things get recorded on tape that is installed on the system in digital form, and there such a chain of custody essentially, so you know, the pilot would not have faced in the cockpit. The other ones, the triangle video, you know, it is possible that the guy was just messing around. When you look in the actual explanation making, we can kind of get into what's actually going on, but he could have actually have created this effect himself or herself. And then this the sphere of video and the radar video, they have the sounds of multiple people acting as if they are in a c i c. Combat information center like the room and the ship where they have all these screens and they look at incoming threats on the radar and whatnot, and it all sounds very genuine. So if that was faked, they would have had to get a bunch of guys to stage this whole thing, and I think the military probably would have explained what was going on by this point if if he was faked to that degree. So you know, I think we can we can take it as read that these are genuine Navy videos, all right, And then we're looking at the videos, we're interested with what could explain this would how could this possibly be something earth bound or prosaic? So how do you analyze it? How do you take it apart? Well? Yeah, what when I look at in these videos is, first of all, I look at what other people have claimed about them, because that's the most important thing where to start off with is if a claim is made about a video, you can see does this claim actually hold up? Because these are other people who say they've done analysis of the video. So I'm first of all checking their analysis to see if it got holds up, because it's kind of pointless meeting a completely different set of analysis and coming to a different conclusion if I don't look at their analysis. So in the first video, the FLEAAR video, the claim is made that the object on screen moves in such a rapid way that it's it's experiencing g forces much higher than a human powered craft could do. Human power, human pilotive craft could actually do it just doing like fifty g s or something like that. So some quite high number, much higher numbers have been speculated to the eyewitness accounts, up to several thousand g's, but that's kind of all different kettle of fish here. By fifty gs, you mean the acceleration. You think changes in velocity. To change the position on screen would require a certain velocity, and you've got to get an eid velocity with an attraction of the second, which means you have to have very rapid acceleration, which means obviously very high forces upon the occupants of the craft or the craft itself, and some very powerful means of propulsion, which you can really only do with without technology if you have some kind of powerful rocket attached to the object, or if it was a very small object and you had like minigiat engines or something like that. But so, you know, I started to look at that, and I think, you do the mass if it is moving, then yes, it is actually experiencing these these high accelerations. But then I started going through the video and I'm looking at all the indicators on the screen, and it tells you what mode is in and what zoom level it's in, whether it's in TV mode or infrared mode. And yeah, I noticed that whenever it did this this movement on screen, it was actually switching which camera it was using, So it would be switching between say TV mode and infrared mode, and then the object would do a little movement. If it's for between wide angle and narrow angle, it would do a little movement. The camera has to do these the gimbal rock corrections occasionally where it traverses the forward direction, it has to rotate the camera around, and when it does that, it also does this little movement. And then right at the end of the video you get the same type of saying. The camera mode changes, the camera loses lock on the object, and then the object drifts off the side the screen. So I noticed all these things lined up, and then I noticed that the heading on the top of the screen, which tells you which where the camera is pointing relative to the plane, starts off on the right. I think it's like five degrees right something like that, and then it moves over to eight degrees left, so it's traverting like ten eleven or twelve degrees over the course of the video, so essentially it's tracking left. And I noticed that every time the camera lost lock because it did a little camera movement, the object moved to the left as if what had happened, which is the camera has stopped tracking. And so I did the math on this, looked at the angular speed of this the camera, and then based on the field of view of the camera itself, figured out how long it took the object to leave the screen and take it out his angular speed. But it's traversing like the half a degree, which is just that that half of the camera that gives you another angular speed, and these two angular speeds matched. So what seemed to be happening was the camera is tracking this object. It occasionally loses LCK and regains it, and then at the end it loses luck and doesn't regain it, so it stops tracking it, and so the object just continues moving. So it didn't appear to be doing anything that had amazing g forces. In fact, it wasn't accelerating at all. There was there was almost no perceptible acceleration from this object. So what we're talking about here is an image on the screen from a camera in motion taking a video of something else in motion. And what you're saying is that to understand the motion of the object itself, you also have to understand the motion of the camera because the image is relative to the camera, and so if it's drifting on the screen, you don't know necessarily if that's the camera turning or if that's the motion of the actual exactly. Like if you imagine you you've got some binoculars and you're looking at the plane up in the sky, you know, far distant plane, and you're just tracking it by following this this thing, but you occasionally it goes behind the three or something that you have to move a position. You'll see the plane will just all around in your field of view. And then if at some point you simply stop tracking it and you hold the binoculars in that position, that the plane will appear to continue going. And I think essentially is what we're seeing here, and that's what matches all of the on screen display. You know, the user interface on the screen displays all these these angles, and the camera modes. It all basically lines up with this explanation I see. So you're not just speculating, you're not just finding some alternative explanation that the camera motion is causing this apparent motion of the object. You're actually seeing confirmation on the screen itself that reads out what the camera is doing, that tells you that everything that the object appears to be moving is in fact just due to the motion of the camera exactly. Yes, every every time the object appears to move, it is in sync with some kind of change of the camera. Either the camera is to it's gimble correction, or it's changing mode from one mode to another, or it's changing zoom level, so it's changing the optical pathway within the camera. And you actually kind of see this at one point in the video. The object appears to zoom off really really quickly to the bottom left corner in an incredibly high rate of speed, where hundreds hundreds of gees of acceleration to get to that speed internally almost instantly. But you can see that coincides exactly with a switch in the optical pathway from the narrow field of view to the wild white field of view. And it's exactly the same type of thing that happens. If you say you've got a microscope, you're looking down the microscope, and you it's got these different lenses down the bottom. If you rotate the magnification the objective down below, you will see the image shift and move, and that's what we're seeing in this video. At the act same time, this object does this like movement off to the side. You see that they're switching from one optical field of view to another. So they're changing the duty internally with mirrors. It's not actually lenses, because they use mirrors for infrared cams to reduce the absorbs of the light. It's it's a lot more effective use knows, But so they're rotating these mirrors, this set of mirrors in and then what happens in the next few frames is it magically appears right back in the middle. So it's obviously never moved though it was there, but the movement of the camera made him move off to the site, exactly the same as you know when you rotating microscope, everything moves off to the side, and then bang, it appears back in the middle again, but in a different magnification. So if you're just looking at the camera footage, you might be confused at first, but if you were there in real time, your brain is pretty good at sort of subtracting your motion from your model of what's going on, Like if you're following something with binoculars, you know if you've tweaked the binoculars or not. Weren't there also eyewitness accounts of these objects. Weren't the Navy pilots themselves surprised at the motion they saw? How do we account for that? Well, the thing is there are eyewitness account but they're not all the same thing. They're not all what was seen in the video. So we have some eyewitnesses who said they had an encounter with a tick tak shaped objects. It was like a fort long tic tac that kind of mirrored their motions and moved around and then flew off very rapidly. And then an hour later another plane went out and took this video, So we don't know if it's the same thing. So it could be that you could be the same thing. But in the video we can tell that nothing amazing is going on in terms of certain movements and high accelerations. But we do have this eye when it's account from an hour earlier of possibly a different object, possibly to say a lot Joe that was just moving rapidly this time. But you know, I don't know what that was. Have a few ideas that hypotheses that might work to do with parallax and things like that, but I don't think it's the same thing as in the video. And unfortunately no shade against navy pilots, but I witness accounts are famously unreliable. It really can't be probed in any detail. So we really just have to look at the evidence we have in front of us. Indeed, and in Navy pilots are very highly trained and they're very good at identifying other planes, highly trained and doing that and you know, plane from different angles and things. But what we're asking them to do here he identified something that is world remained unidentified even after they saw it, so that they never actually identified it. They saw what looks like a tic tac shaped object, like a giant propane tank. They gave that description, and maybe that's just what it looked like, you know, maybe that was what it was, but then the movement. Is that what actually happened or is that just how they perceived the movement because it was a type of thing that they were not so familiar with. If you don't know how big something is you do know how far away is it? They said it was forty ft long, But how did they actually figure that out? They never actually explained that. And they said that they're very familiar with looking at hounted which is a type of plane theft like the f A A team, which is forty ft long. And he said it was about the same size as that. But that's to me, sounds like he's used to seeing things that are forty ft long, and so he just automatically fit this object, which may have been ten ft long or twenty ft long or eight long into that mold because he didn't know how big it was. He then don't know how far away it is. If you think something is forty ft long and it's actually twenty ft long, then the actual distance is half what it actually appears to be. So he's thinking something flying really fast over there, it could have been flying really slow much closer to him. So that's the clear video. Then let's go through the other ones to go fast in the gimbal videos. Okay, so the go Fast video, actually it looks like something moving very fast over the surface of the ocean. But here, luckily, there's some very simple mathematics that we can do because on screen we have three numbers, which is all we need to figure out what's going on. Really, we have the altitude of the plane, which is twenty five thou feet and it's that's in the bottom left corner. So barometric altitude so it's based on the pressure is close enough, so it's about We have the range of the targets because it actually gets a radar lock on this target, so it knows how far away it is. He knows it's three point three nauticable miles away line of sight from you to this object. And then we also have the plant angle, which is the angle down from horizontal that the cameras, which I believe is a sauted around mine twenty two twenty two degrees down, so we know we're at twenty five feet. We're looking down at twenty two degrees at something which is three point three nautical miles away. So this diagonal line down is say it's the high potent use of a right angled triangle. And again what we're looking at is the center of the screen is some object and in the background is the ocean moving past it. And it appears as if it's schimming just over the surface of the water incredibly high speeds. So again, like what I'm doing here is I'm looking at the claims that are made. So the simple claim is that you know, it is scheming over the service of the ocean at really high speed. So I'm saying, is it actually doing that? And if we can use these numbers to figure that out, then that will prove or just prove that particular hypothesis. So you know, we've got these three numbers, you know, the range, the altitude, and the slant angle. We can do very very simple mathematics. We are right tangle triangle and this we have an angle, and we have the length of the hypoten news, which just takes the sign of the angle and multiplied by the hypoten news and it gives you the opposite leg of that triangle, which is the heights below where you are. This is just high school mathematics. It's tenth grade mathematics. If you take tenth grade triggonometry, that you would you would learn exactly how to solve this very very simple problem. You can draw a diagram super simple. Turns out it's not actually low The object is not low down at the bottom of the ocean. It's actually halfway between where the plane is and the ocean, which means that if it's halfway between you and the ocean, then if, for example, it wasn't moving at all, what we would see on screen would still look exactly the same as we see in this video. It would look like it's moving very rapidly over the ocean. Because the plane that we're taking the video from, one of the other numbers we see on screen is that it starts out with a camera fifty degrees to the left. So it's kind of like you're going along in a car and a faster or a train, and you're looking out the side window of this train and you see something like a building in a field far away, and then the mountains behind it. If you just focus on that building, it will look like it's kind of skimming past these mountains. The mountains will pay to move behind it if you look on onto that. If you look onto the mountains behind it, it will look like the house is moving past. It's it's the parallax effect, and when one thing appears to move relative to another because of a change in the position, all of the viewpoint. So you're able to look at this video and measure the distance between the planes taking the video and the object and show that it's much closer to the plane than it is to the surface of the ocean, that the claim that it's right above the surface is just an illusion. And then it's actually much much higher above the surface of the ocean. It's not really closer to the plane than the surface of the ocean is actually halfway. It's actually almost exactly in the middle, which is like the ideal position really for this this parallax alluvision to happen if it wasn't moving, which it is actually moving, But imagine if it wasn't moving, and you draw a line from your plane through this object. You know, she's hovering in space down to the surface of the ocean, and you think, you know, you move your plane at two thirds the speed of sound in one direction. The other end of that line, that line of sight is going to move in the opposite direction at two the speed of sound. So if you think that the object itself is down by the surface of the ocean, it would look like it's moving over the ocean at the same speed as your plane, except in the opposite direction, so you get this weird delusion. But besides this, the simple observation that it's in the middle and that it doesn't necessarily need to be moving. We can then actually go in and calculate how fast it is moving because we know time comes into it is that's a factor here. So we have like thirty seconds of the video where we have a lock on this object. We have a range, and we have a slant angle, and we have a bearing angle relative to the plane, and we also have the tailt angle of the plane's wings. So it's you know, it's getting a little bit more complicated. Now we have more variables, but we can say the kilt angle of the plane's wings, and we can use just standard calculators to figure out what the rate of turn would be in degrees for second, so we know the plane is just turning to the left and amount. We also know how fast the plane is going because we have that number on screen. Although the number there is the calibrated despeed, not the true air speed. You have to convert them solves. It's a little bit more complicated, and even though this is one of the simpler videos, things get complicated. So we know the angle and the range at the starts, and we know the angle and the range at the end. So if we draw a little back to diagram with a plane in one position at the start of this segment, and then the plane where it ends up at the end of this segment, which kind of forward in a bit to the left and turn a bit, we can draw two lines from those positions and see where the target actually is relative to the plane, because we know how far away it is, and we know the angle to look at, so we know where it is in plane space plane relative space. And then you've got those two positions, you draw a line between those and you measure the length of that line. That is, how far that object has moved in the absolute coordinates where the plane started. So knowing what you see on the screen and knowing the position of the camera at all times, you can completely reconstruct sort of the three D story of what actually happened. Yeah, and actually created a little interactive Vetter diagram where you could adjust to various parameters because there's some uncertainty. Is to know exactly what's going on in terms of how fast this is rotating, how fast the plane is turning to the side, but what you can do is you can just see the range of values this object might have moved, which gives you the range of possible velocitudes. And it turns around. It's something of the order of around like forty or fifty knots. You know, it's like forty four fifty five miles per hour, which is very very slow for a flying object, and in fact it's about the exact same speed as the wind at that altitude. Typical value for wind as high altitudes is anything from like thirty knots up to a hundred knot so it's it's entirely consistent with something just simply sitting in the wind than being blown by the wind. So just like a balloon under no power at all being blown by the wind, exactly like a balloon. And in fact, the balloon is the most likely hypothesis for another factor, which you can also get from the more information that's in this video. It's quite remarkable how much information is in there. The video is in black hot mode. Is an INTREDI video again, and it's in black hot. So if if it was hot it was a jet plane, for example, you would see the heat of the engine show it was black but this just shows there was a white dot, which means it's actually cold. It's actually colder than the ocean. You can see it's actually colder than the surface of the ocean, which appears darker behind it. And that would be really weird if it actually was moving very fast, because you'd see no emission. But since it's not moving quickly, it makes sense that it's not emitting any heat exactly exactly, and that's one of the claims that has been made. This was an extraordinary craft, you know, simply a you know, a jet flying very fast. It's not amazing. But the reason there was claimed to be extraordinary was that it was cold. They had no visible flights evises or anything like that. He just appears as this dot. That's that's cold. But you know, a dot lit is cold. Drifting at wind speed is just a balloon because it would take on the temperature of the air around it and just be moving at the same speed as the wind. So again, once you you dig into it, everything fits this new hypothesis of it being a balloon, which kind of the thought arises naturally, what moves out wind speed in the air, And there's anybody you know, this either a plane pretending to be a balloon or it is a balloon, so it fits. And obviously it disproves the earlier hypothesis that is some incredible craft moving without means of propulsion. Well, I always wonder what happens to the balloons that are released at like gender revealed parties, and maybe some of them end up as you know, claimed aliens and my navy pilots will never know. All right, So that's the flear Tic Tac video as well as the go Fast video. What about the gimbal one? The one you said is claimed to be the most dramatic, lying slaster video we've ever seen. It is if you don't know what's going on, But once you do know what's going I said, it's still kind of interesting. Again, like you do. The what's my process here is to look at the claims that are made about this video. One of the claims dates back to when it was originally leaked by the New York Times in two thousands and seventeen. The title of the article was called Glowing Auras and Black Money, And the reason they called it Blowing Auras and Black Money was that what you see on the screen is this black source of shaped object, but then around it there's a white aura like kind of a white glow around it, which looks very unusual. But then when you know that this interred video where black is heart, that implies what you're seeing around the object is cold, So you're seeing what is it? What could it be? Is it like a hot object with cold air around it? And it seems like something that's physically impossible, and in fact, if it was cold, you wouldn't actually see it because air essentially is transparent to the infrared, so it takes a loss of heat to actually see heat coming off of gases, so you wouldn't actually see it if it was just cold there. So people hypothesized about it being some kind of space warp or something like that, some kind of us walk in the nature of space time around this object, and that's what it means. The propulsion is being suggested by this strange aura. So what I did there is I went to look for other thermal camera footage. Now we don't have this particular camera that the actual camera, but we do have lots of footage from thermal cameras, just like things like surveillance cameras and people doing experiments with little film and cameras. I have a little thermal camera myself somewhere in my desk, and you can you can do this experiment. And what I found was that this type of glowing aura around a black hot shape is actually remarkably common. I found it in numerous other videos. I found it around the exhaust of jet plane to either be a black with a white aura around it. I found it around a dancing girl. Someone took an inter picture of a small girl who was dancing and she appeared as black and she had this white aura around it. And it turns out that this aura is a common artifact of thermal cameras. I thought you were going to say that this dancing girl was probably an alien. Well, and that's the possibility, of course, but you know, low down on the list, so you know, I find out that this lowing aura, I mean, the first claim that they made about the video didn't actually hold up, and that it wasn't actually evidence of anything at all. It was just a normal expected artifact of the camera. When you say artifact, you mean that we're not seeing something that's actually there. We're seeing sort of like something that happens to the screen as the data is taken. Yeah, it's a sharpening artifact, and the reason it appears is that to increase the visual contrast of objects, that use a thing called an unsharped mask, which is an old photography technique, is actually a physical photography technique where you kind of you take a blurred version of the image and then you subtract it from the image itself and it accents the boundaries between light and dark. So it's a very good way of increasing the contrast. But if you boost it very high, which you do if you want to see things very clearly and you don't really care so much about image fidelity, you create these areas around things and you actually you see it in iPhone photography. If you zoom in on the edges of things, you will see a kind of a light dark boundary between dark light things. So you can get these kind of issues. Are just a few pixels if that, But that's standard, a standard image sharpening artifact in digital photography, and so this is probably done by the camera online automatically. This is not like some post processing that was done in the studio. This is just digital processing in the pipeline. This was done in camera essentially, and you can see it doesn't occur around the numbers on the side of the screen, so it's just part of the video feed itself, and it's something that they can actually switch one or off in the camera because it's just a standard like sharpening setting. So then while we're seeing is a hot object. Yes, so what we're seeing is a black hot object, which just means hot object. So then they claim that it shows an object which is rotating, which kind of implies to things. I mean that one is that it implies that what we're seeing is the actual shape of the object, this kind of source of shape thing, and that what we're seeing is that object actually rotate thing. So you start looking into that and you think, you know, is there an alternative to it being a physical object? And the alternative that I came up with was that it could be the glare of an object. If you take something like a flashlight and kind of flashlights shining at the camera here, it creates a big glare. You see. I've got a small flashlight here's about the size of my eyeball, and I changed at the camera and I got this big glare that's always the size of my head. So you can get these big glass Now, this isn't just something that occurred to me out of the blue. This is something that came directly from a previous case that I had investigated, called the Chilean Navy UFO case, where there was a similar looking kind of big black blob. It was a bit more irregular this one, and some investigation of that one by tracking down the actual radar tracks at that time, and we knew all the GPS coordinates and everything, so we didn't really need to make guesses. We figured out exactly what it was this object. It turns out this big amorphous black blob was actually an airbus, a three FOURT, which is a four engined plane, and each of the four engines was creating a infrared blare. Again, it was infrared footage that was about maybe ten twenty times as big as the actual engine itself, and they all kind of merged together into this one big block. So when I saw this other video, this gimble video of something in the infrared, almost my first thought was, could this be like in that old case, like in the Chilean Navy uf case. Could it be the glare of the engine that's obscuring a distant plane, and so I started looking into that as a hypothesis, the kind of answers you know, what's actually going on here. So if you look into you know, the one aspect of it. This most impressive, the rotation of the object, something that came out after simply just studying it over and over again. What I would do is I take the video into a program where you could scrub rapidly through the videos that you you can move the position of the playhead essentially, so you can go backwards and forward. So I was having the object going like this, tating, and then I noticed that in other parts of the screen there were these are vague shapes, there were also rotating. So at the same time as the object rotated or appear to rotate, we saw other bits of light within the scene rotate. And I thought, you know, how could this be? I mean, the only thing that makes any sense is that the camera itself is rotating, and if the camera rotates, then all of the lights in the scene with rotate. Now, this is where it starts to get a little bit complicated, and it's a little bit difficult to explain, and people have a hard time with this. If you rotate a camera, then the picture of what you're looking at will also rotate. And so but what we're looking at here, and I'm saying the cameras rotating, but only this little glare in the middle of the screen rotating, and these these other shapes are rotating. But the thing about this particular camera system is that it's the way it is mounted. It's mounted on a two axis gimbal, and when it moves from left to right when it's trying an object, it can't just smoothly do that because it's it's only a mounted on two access and you get this thing called gimbal lock, which people are familiar with from all different like robotics has this problem where a robot can't smoothly go through one particular angle, so it has to do this rotation, which means that the camera rotate. The camera has to rotate to get from lecture right. You don't want the whole scene to rotate. The pilots watching the scene, he doesn't want the horizon has suddenly flip upside down. So even though the camera is rotating, the horizon stays exactly a level. But so what's happening though, is that the camera's rotating relative to some part of the equipment. With that, it's within essentially that it's in this big pot and it's looking at through this window. And so my hypothesis there was that because it's rotating relative to the window, the shape of the window or what's on the window is creating the shape of the glare. So the camera rotate, rotates the horizon. It then has this system to rotate everything back. But since the cameras rotated relative to the horizon, the shape with the glare relative to the rise and changes. You know, it is difficult to explain. I came up with a simple demonstration that I actually show this on CNN. I have this bit of glass, it's a filter camera and filter, and I can rotate it and I can kind of point my simulated a glare at the camera and if I hold a bit of glass in front of it, and you can see that whenever I take the bit of glass, the glare rotates. You see that that line its diagonal. Now to go. Sorry's so if a camera rotates, a glare is relative to the orientation of the camera, the shape of the glass relative to the orientation of the camera. That will rotate as well. Then you when you when you de rotate it to get the horizon level, the glare appears to rotate. And it's just difficult to convey, as I keep saying. But the reason they keep saying that is that people when they hear this explanation, they think that it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I can't understand what you're talking about. You know, it's mental gymnastics. But just because something is a little difficult to convey, it doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. If you take the time to actually look into what's actually going on here, it does actually make sense as as the most plausible explanation. So then did a little bit more work, a little bit more digging here. I looked at the patents for this camera, the Apler system, and found out that, you know, it has this this de rotation mechanism to de rotate images that rotates when the camera rotates, and it actually specifies in the patent that it needs to do this gimble correction. It's around plus alinus three degrees or thereabouts, which is more or less where it's doing it. The big rotation happens here when you get close to zero degrees. So again everything kind of aligns up with this, with this other hypothesis that it is a glare, and it's kind of essentially confirmed by the fact that the other light patterns in the scene rotate when the glare rotates, it exactly the same point in time, and there really isn't an alternative explanation for that other than the camera rotation. So what we're seeing here is a hot object with an artifact giving it this aura, and then we're also seeing this rotation which comes actually from the rotation of the camera relative to some screen or some lens in front of it. Yeah, exactly. But there's even more with this this video like these, you know, like I said that it's setive, is simple, and it's easy to look at them and they go, whoa, it's amazing. That must be a UFO because it looks like something that's amazing. But you can dig in even more to this, and we see again we have the numbers on the screen, we have the bearing of the object relative to the front of the plane, and it can narrows down. So it starts out we're looking out of the left window again at this this this object, and then we turned around into a looking more straight on at it, and you notice the motion of the object. It looks like it's whizziting across the top of the cloud. But then later it seems to slow down and almost stop, and that coincides with you the plane that's following it turn around so it's facing it. So I think, again, what we're seeing is parallax movement. And you can again do the mess. You can see where these objects might be and how far away they're moving, and just it doesn't actually take very much to create a solution of parallax. So the claim that it's flying along and stops and then rotates, it doesn't really hold up when you investigate it. It seems like something that's simply flying away from us, like another jet or a drone or something like that, or you know, perhaps an alien spaceship. But it's something that's flying away from us that it's hot. We are looking at it from the side, and we turn around to face it, and we get this illusion of parallax. And then when the camera has to do is gimbal role correction, we get this illusion that the object is rotating. And I think that's that's what we're seeing. It doesn't identify what the object actually is. That, like I said, it could still be an alien spaceship, but it does mean all these claims that people have made about it do not hold up to scrutiny. There's nothing amazing being demonstrated here. It's not hovering on its end, it's not got a glowing order of warping space around it, and it's not covering, it's not stopping. It's just something that's basically just flying away and it's hot. So it's not that we can tell what it is that we can say that is or is not an alien, But the things that have brought it to our attention it seemed weird and seemed difficult to explain, are actually possible to explain with much more prosaic theories. Yeah, so we have unidentified object, but we don't have an unidentified amazing object. It's real, but it's not spectacular. Right, there's a whole other acronym. All right, I want to talk about the newer three videos, but first let's take another short break. All right, we're back and we're talking with Mick West. He was giving us a detailed accounting of his understanding of what's going on. In these apparent UFO videos, these U A P videos that were released by the Navy, a lot of people are talking about is potentially credible evidence for visiting extraterrestrials. And Nick is talking to us about how he analyzed these videos and what he thinks they might possibly mean. So we talked about the three older videos. Tell us what you think about these more recent videos, the ones that came out in two, Flying Triangle and the zig Zagging Submersible spear. Tell us about the well, the Flying Triangle one, I think is the most entertaining one. It looks very impressive, like you see this screen triangle. Night What we're looking at here is night vision, which is different to infrared. Most of the other videos are are infrared cameras. This is a night vision camera, and so what's the difference. The night vision is image intensification. So it takes what you can see be in very faint light and it magnifies the light. It has this intense multipliitube. When photons come in, it creates a cascade of electrons and it creates a dot on the screen on the other side, So you get a much more powerful signal from just essentially individual photons that creates an image that it's it's it's night vision is commonly used by troops and they have one attached the helmet that I mean, they flip it down and then they go out into a bill holding or whatever. It does need a little bit of light. Sometimes this supplements it with a short wave infrared light, like a little intra red flashlight, which adds to the amount of a visible light which is visible and infrared spectrum. But it's not a thermal camera. It's not a thermal infrared camera, so it's a different type of thing. We're not seeing heat sources. We're seeing actual lights here, so that the analysis has to be very different because of that. So we see a flying triangle and it's you know, it's this little green thing and it moves across what looks like stars, but actually a lot of what you're seeing on screen is not stars. The little points of light you see on screen, or what's called scintillation, is just kind of random electrons inside the multiplieritube in the image intensive fire, So we're not actually seeing a triangle moving across the staffield that's that's visible in this in these these things, so we see a triangle, and the first thing I noticed about it was that it was flashing, and it was flashing in a way that very closely resembled the flashing lights of a plane. And I thought, you know, if it's this is an alien UFO or some kind of Chinese enemy drone that's trying to sell the attack or whatever it's supposed to be, why does they have standard navigation lights? So then I looked up the rough location of where that ship was. It's the US sr US All and they released the log book of it, or it came out with a Freedom of Information Act request and we know where it was. And it's just kind of off the coast between San Diego and Los Angeles, just going to south of Catalina Island, and that's right on the fly path of planes coming in towards L A. X And Airport. So there was a whole bunch of planes just flying over roughly at that time. So I thought, you know, it's flashing like a plane. It's in a location where planes fly overhead. Could it be that it was a plane? And you know, obviously it doesn't look like a plane. It looks like a triangle, like a flying triangle. And the whole triangle flashes. But again I kind of realized what might be going on here just simply from past experience, because I've seen many videos and I thought, you know, maybe it's just a little bit out of focus on. What we're seeing here is what's called boki, which is the shape that a point of light takes when it's out of focus if you take a picture. This is something you see in portraits a lot. So take a picture of a person and behind them there's some lights, like like a Christmas tree or something like that, or a little point lights you see in YouTube videos as well. People wantn't have very lights behind them, and then they're out of focus and you'll generally see around shape around them. Sometimes you will see an octonal shape or a hexagonal shape. And what you're seeing there is the shape of the aperture of the lens. Like if you take a typical lens like like this one here is it's just a regular camera lens, and you look at the interior of it, you can see it's gonna round his shape. This one's actually an octagon, and it's gonna blurry in this this video, but you can see the shape of that and that's the shape of the point of light takes. But if you have a lens that has a triangular aperture, then when you look through that and take pictures with that that I'd been out of focus, then the lights will show up as little triangles. So my hypothesis there was that this is in fact a plane. This has just a bit out of focus. The flashing is the flashing lights of the plane, and it's a triangular shape because of the triangular aperture of the camera that he's taking this video. So then you know, I've come up with this immediate hypothesism, like ten minutes to come up with this, because you know, just kind of recognized the type of things I'm looking at. I've got to try to find more evidence for this. So going back to the very start of the video, you see some dots in the distance, and then originally I thought these were distant planes flying towards the boat, with somebody else pointed out that these actually were stars. And you can tell that the stars because they match the constellation of those particular stars. This one start called I think arc tourists. And then there is the planet Jupiter, and Jupiter of course moves through the sky is not in a fixed place. So we took the actual data the incident nineteen saw what Jupiter was relative to these stars, and it's an exactly that spot, so we know exactly what we're looking at that court part of the video. Now at that part of the video is not zoomed in, so we can't see the triangular shape of these things. There's there are only a few pixels. This is very very low resolution video. But what we can do is we can take this position of where these stars are and then kind of move the camera because you can see moving relative to the clouds that appear, and so you can track where it is and then where it ends up at at the end of this video where you see this this flashing triangle, and then you notice at the end of the video there's two other triangles appear, one above the other, two other faint triangles, and the fliers past them. And the people meant who made claims about this video claim that these are the two triangles, were two other drones or alien spaceships or whatever they were to other U a p s. But I did this this tracking of the position of the camera across the sky, and it turns out if you start with these stars over here and you end up over here, there's two stars right in that position where these two supposed you U A P S actually are. So we know now that these two lights are actually stars, but these two lights appear as triangles. The only way that can happen is if they are triangular booky, so that essentially it's kind of paste close that there's there's nothing else that could possibly be other than triangles created by the tremblor. But you know, you didn't stop there. Of course, we keep going try to find more evidence that people say, well, the standard night vision binocular that they're using the Army, the PDS four team, doesn't have a triangular aperture. So I theorized that maybe that the sometimes people actually change the aperture of the lens cap to have less light coming in. If you're in a situation where you've got quite a bit of light, you know, a fairly well liest situation, you can actually have too much light and you don't need it, and you can reduce this this aperture in front and get better focused. Smaller aperture is better focused. That was a little bit of a long shot, but Luckily happened then, was that somebody on my forum Meta Bunk looked at his night vision min ocular they just happened to have, and he saw that it had a triangular aperture. So he took his night vision milecular out and started filming stars and planes going by, and it looked exactly the same. Everything was exactly the same. We had the scintillation, we had the stars, we had the planes flashing, we had the same size, the exact same size triangle. So he did that, and you made some videos and that kind of explained this to people, and I think that explanation is largely taken hold of other people have found the night vision mile oculars had these triangular apertures, and they've gone out and repeat it exactly the same people who were once skeptics. They were like, oh no, that couldn't possibly happen, and then they were like, oh wait, let me look at person, and they take the video and yeah, it all lines up. And then, maybe most convincingly, though, you're seeing objects in this particular video which you know are point sources, these stars in Jupiter which are appearing as triangle, So you know that the triangle shape in this video even though you don't have your hands and that actually monocular are artifacts, and so then and then you additionally reproduced this using similar equipment in other videos. So that seems pretty clear that it's it's not a strong case for a flying pyramid. And yeah, the people who released this video are kind of still clinging onto the possibility that he might be something something amazing. I think they just kind of don't want to let go of this this idea. And you know, there's there's a small amount of justification to it. If this is a video that is part of the UAP Task Forces investigation, which according to the Navy it actually is, then you've got to say, why didn't the Navy figure this out? And to which the answer is maybe they have. Maybe they have figured it out, but at the time this might have been something that seems to be unidentified, especially to the person who took this. This thing like this, So this guy is he's not a vision minoculars on deck. He see some flashing lights overhead, Actually intact, he's not. He doesn't even see that. He's looking at the Jupiter and then it's just around for the clouds. And then you noticed this there's little flashing lights up there, and he goes, oh my god, it's triangular shapes. What's going on? And so he films it for a while and it disappears. He gets his his camera out in his filming it through the night vision mile ocular and then he makes the report and says, I saw a triangular shaped craft flying over the ship. And initially it becomes this unidentified events and they don't know what's going on. But later I think anybody with any technical chops who actually looks at this video will figure out what it is. And it wasn't just me. Other people came to it immediately the same conclusion. Other people completely independently of me, went out and took a video with the night vision mile oculars with triangular apertures, and all came to the same conclusion. So I think, yes, the Navy would have figured out what it is. And perhaps they have another releasing a report in just a few days on their analysis of it. So we'll see what they say. But tell us quickly about this last video. This zig zagging submersible sphere, the zig zagging submersible sphere, it doesn't zigzag again. What we're seeing here is camera movement. And this is something that's even more apparent than the Flair video. You see a dark shape again, it's black his heart. So we're looking at something that's hot. It could well be a glare. Anybody probably is a glare. But it looks at the first leg it is zips over to the left, and the zips over to the right, and a zips there is a left episode in the right. What's happening there is there's somebody in the ship with a little joystick who is moving the camera trying to get a lock on this this shape, and it's getting a visual lock on the shape of the camera. Just it's kind of like when you do motion tracking in ABE after effects or somebody say, like track this objects. All he's trying to do, basically, is to get the cursor around this object. So he's moving at election right from right, So the object itself isn't moving a left and right. It's moving at the constant velocity, which could be hardly moving at all, because we don't know what the relative speed of the ship is or what we're seeing on the ocean surfaces that the motion of the ocean, or is that the motion of the waves and the wind that gives an illusion of motion, so we're not seeing something very rapidly moving. But then it appears to kind of drop down to the ocean and disappear into the ocean. And people have suggested that this is what they call a transmedium craft, like it's it flies in the air and then it flies in the ocean. And you know, for a start, like when we're looking at something that's descending increatively slowly, it's very slowly down to the ocean, and then it kind of disappears. And if you look at what actually happens when it disappears, that's really interesting. You zoom in and go frame by frame. It doesn't like go behind something. It's not like you know, it's like a round object. Going behind something would be like you see half of it when it's half behind it and it disappears. What it appears to do is it appears to shrink into like a little point and disappear. Now that would happen if it was a glare and instead of going into the ocean, it was actually just disappearing behind the horizon. You know, the Earth, this is a sphere. So when we look out over the ocean, the horizon is kind of like a very shallow hill. So something's are away and goes down below that, it will disappear, and it will disappear by shrinking. If it's a glare, like if I have a glare. Again, if you shine a light at the camera and moving down behind something you don't see it like being cutting half, you will see it actually shrink. It stays the same shape and shrinks right, and it shrinks, And this is exactly what we see in the video. In fact, we see it disappear and then can pop up a little bit and then the spear again. So I think the most likely explanation to that I haven't identified it, but the explanation for this strange behavior is that it's disappearing behind the horizon, and we're seeing it being obscured by way. It's just on the horizon. They're going up and down, so you see it disappear and then briefly appear behind a wave and then then disappear again. So it could be as something like a distant plane or some kind of craft flying away from the camera, and it could be tens of miles away, maybe even a hundred miles away, and it's descending because it's getting further away, and so it gets closer to the horizon. And then when it gets to the horizon, it's not actually in the water. It's just very very far away. It gets obscured by the waves, and then eventually it's lost from site. I don't know what's actually going on, but it doesn't seem to exhibit it's not zigzagging, and it's not exhibiting any apparent trans medium activity. It doesn't necessarily look like an alien flying submarine. That's right, you know. It looks like a slow moving heat source that disappears behind the horizon. All right, so thank you very much for telling us about all of those videos. Let me ask you a more hypothetical question now, which is, can you imagine a scenario where you see a video that you think is consistent with, you know, some sort of unexplained extraterrestrial craft. What would it take to convince you that what you're looking at can't be explained by you know, other more prosaic theories. Well, this kind too fast to that. So one is like, if you see a video of something that's really amazing, you don't know if it's aliens or if it's humans, because someone's could have invented some new technology. But let's say you know, what would be the video evidence of something that amazing and she was an amazing technology like a warp drive or anti gravity or something like that. And I think that the evidence you need there is independently measured things from two positions, essentially, so with video, like having two videos taken by two different people of the same thing from known locations with known cameras, so you can then triangulate what's going on so that you can actually see it is actually making this particular sac of motion in three dimensions. So when you're looking at something in two dimensions, you don't know if something is is small or far away, and you don't know if what you're seeing is some kind of optical effect in this camera. If you have two videos, that eliminates a lot of that possible confusion and you can see it it is actually moving. And if you have more video, that's even better. And then on top of that, if you have radar data, that's going to be great too as well. So you know multiple readings of the same exact event, not you know things that happened roughly at the same time, but the same exact thing doing something amazing would demonstrate it that it was actually doing something amazing. And so when you take one of these videos and you find another explanations and it makes sense to you that doesn't require invoking aliens, what do you feel. Do you feel like, ah, ha, I cracked a puzzle. This is super fun, or do you feel, oh, that's too bad. I was kind of hoping this might be aliens or some combination. Well, I always hope it might be aliens, but I don't have very high hopes, so I don't have great expectations that are being aliens. If if it did turn out to be something amazing, it would it would be flabergasta and it would be totally amazing. So usually when I figured something out, it's just like figure it out, no, no, no, I solved the puzzle, because that's what it is for me. A lot of the time is if you're trying to figure out the puzzle, so there are all these little clues, you know, the things I talked about in these videos. Sometimes you're looking at like ten fifteen different little clues in the video, and once you figure it out and you know you're you're beating other people to figure it out. That's kind of a fun thing too, because it's a little bit of competitiveness in it, because we're all trying to solve these things. We'll trying to figure out what they are, and if you managed to do it, it's fun little feather in your cap. Well, that's what we're all trying to do in sciences and for the true nature of the universe. Based on the pieces of evidence we have, it's all just one big detective story. So let me ask you a non scientific question, since we obviously don't have evidence one way or the other, do you have a personal feeling for whether there are extraterrestrial civilizations out there in the galaxy? Well, my personal feeling is just I think, similar to most people, that the universe is so big that it almost seems inevitable that then must be some kind of life out there. I mean, sure, maybe we are the first life to arise in the universe, but I think given the size of the universe, it seems fairly likely that some kind of civilization has risen. You know, maybe not very very complicated, but you know, I'm sure there's self replicating organisms elsewhere in the universe, but you know, civilization is a little bit more complicated than that. But yes, I think it's out there. I just don't think there's any good evidence that they've come visiting anytime recently. Absolutely, I agree. And something that convisits me as well is that we have all these videos, but they are all of totally different kinds of apparent phenomena. If we had like nineteen different videos and they all showed the same kind of ship doing the same kind of trick, that might be tele convincing story, because in the end, what we're looking for is a coherent explanation for everything. Certainly possible that extrass reels have visited and they're sneaking around and were occasionally capturing glimpses of them, But six completely different kinds of aliens, flying completely different kinds of ships that can do six completely different things. That's a little harder to swallow. Yeah. Here we have like a we have a flying take tack, We have a hovering flying source of top type thing, and we have a flying cold object actually other ones that are all hot, and then we have a flying flashing triangle, and then we have a flying hot sphere that des sends into the ocean, so that, yeah, why don't we have two videos, even even at seferent times, to just to show the exact same amazing thing. And that's too bad because I personally would love if aliens came to visit and could help us unravel some of these secrets of the universe. And I hope that if they do, they don't hide and then to sneak around, they just you know, land on the White House lawn and start to talk to us. All right, well, thank you very much macke for sharing with us your experience and your expertise and walking through the details of these videos. They are interesting. The videos themselves are amazing, but it may be that they don't show actually amazing craft. Thank you very much for having me love very interesting topic and I love talking about it, all right. Thanks again, and thank you everybody out there who stuck with us for this long and very detailed, but I think illuminating podcast episode about something that has tickled all of us. Thanks everyone for tuning in, Thanks for listening, and remember that Daniel and Jorge explained. The Universe is a production of I Heart Radio For More podcast for my Heart Radio, visit the I heart radio, app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Yeah.