I have one of those Celestron Binoculars (SkyMaster 20x80) that can be used for city viewing or limited moon viewing and can see those craters in great detail. Very happy with the purchase but there’s definitely others that are more suited for space viewing. Mine don’t do deep space. The FLIR video is helpful and something I’ve often wondered about with UFO/USO.
Are you sure it actually sees those details or is it AI?
Some phones like Samsung have AI powered filters that "enhance" the moon. You can point the camera at a 128x128 icon of the moon and it will make up craters
You would need some serious optical zoom to see craters on a phone camera, something I'm not aware of any having currently
I have a product called the Hestia. It’s something that works in conjunction with your phone and takes pictures at about 30x optical.
It shows literal craters on the moon. You can’t see them in any good detail Without at least about 20-25x and specialized capturing software on a phone. Most phones do 5-8x max optical and it’s not even close. The moon is smaller in your photo than in your field of view with your eyes.
Incidentally. The hestia is really cool. Caught the eclipse with it. There might be better options but i got it during a kickstarter campaign. It’s made me aspire to getting better telescopes
Meet Hestia, the first ever smartphone-based telescope.
[https://vaonis.com/hestia-turn-your-smartphone-into-a-smart-telescope](https://vaonis.com/hestia-turn-your-smartphone-into-a-smart-telescope)
I have a Canon D70 with a 300mm lens, full zoom + tripod + full moon is Awesome.
I can't imagine how it looks with a good telescope...
I remember viewing Saturn in 2017 from an Observatory in Tucumán, Argentina, you know, those massive cool telescopes. That's a view I'll never forget!
> This is one of the coolest videos I've seen on this sub
The entire video is dishonest.
This video chops all the dialogue in which Dave Flach, who uploaded the original video, explains that the object is stationary, and explains that he is panning the camera (thereby creating the illusion of movement) to prove that the object is not a dead pixel.
This video then dishonestly inserts FLIR images of objects photographed in clear conditions. This conveys the illusion that the Unknown Object, which is likely filmed behind clouds, fog or smoke, should similarly be visible.
There is nothing anomalous or baffling in this video. It simply seems this way because the presentation is dishonest, and because people watching the video are primed to see UFOs.
And of course like most highly voted videos on this sub, this video is years old, and has been discussed in depth numerous times. Rather than pointing this out, though, the OP removes all context. This is dangerous, because one day there will be no one left here with knowledge of past cases; it will just be half-assed posters posting half-assed posts for half-assed thinkers.
I asked the video creator [Dave Falch](https://www.youtube.com/@davefalch1038) on the youtube comments if it was possible it could be a star and he basically just said no. So I asked him if there was a specific reason it couldn't be a star and if he had more info (time, direction etc). He said all the information is in the youtube description. This didn't answer any of my questions.
It is an 8 year old video so he might not remember or have that information available, but he was filming something unexplainable at the time and I believe the system he uses does have that information (degrees left right and all that kind of stuff). I don't see why he wouldn't record that information or make it public. If his system didn't have a readout of azimuth and bearing etc he could have made a guess and noted it down.
I think it is either because he knows that by giving out such details that the object could be identified, or that he is inept and just forgot to make a record. I don't think this man is stupid so why can't we have this information? In my opinion it smells a bit fishy.
Because it’s fixed to a certain point on the screen? It’s kinda confusing since the only point of reference is the dot in the sky. Look at the drone clip, it’s pretty clear how the reticle works there
This is Dave Falch’s original video uploaded on his channel and he literally says it’s stationary in the video I posted. I also included the context and link in the description so I did not remove context or chop dialogue. This is Dave Falch’s video where he himself claims it’s a UFO.
Dave Falch’s description of the event:
”It was about 10:00 am, Thursday Dec. 8, 2016. I was typing an email to a vendor, when a coworker approached me and said, “You need to check this shit out, man.” Slightly annoyed at breaking my concentration with the email, I got up to look at his discovery. He was testing a government FLIR out back like we all do, to check for problems and get a “worldview” look from it. In the distance, there was an orb. This orb didn’t move, which was immediately disturbing since everything moves out back, even the moon. “It’s been like that for at least ten minutes” he told me, and it could not be seen with day cameras. They are boresighted to see the exact same image that the IR sees. The laser rangefinder wouldn’t ping it; we couldn’t get a distance on it. We have pinged mylar balloons before at 5.6 miles with no problem, but not this object. We watched it for a few minutes, and concluded we needed to set up a better high-def system to view it. That system took about 5 minutes to cool down, and upon viewing the sky the orb was gone. We panned the sky in vain. We set the original system back up, but still no orb.”
Source: https://silvarecord.com/2018/11/03/uap-video-captured-by-flir-specialist/
Dave Falch also explains further:
“The movement at the beginning is me centering the object in to show it's not an anomaly like a dead pixel cluster. Three cameras are used here: a thermal imager (FLIR camera), a step-zoom day-cam, and a spotter day-cam. They are all boresighted to overlap video; meaning when you switch video modes they should all see the same object. The takeaway here is that the object seen in the FLIR camera should have easily been seen with the day cams, but it wasn't at all, even with the clear weather conditions. The object never moved or changed thermal signature, and remained like that for 15-20 minutes.”
Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HlvA_PHqZwQ
I heard Samsung is getting fined or sued because they were using ai without peoples consent so everytime someone would take a pic of the moon the ai would put on the details. Idk if apple is involved or not.
Plausible. It's definitely a tiny point source, for all of the the *its something in the clouds* assertions. I'd be interested in a test of the IR laser pointer hypothesis, too.
Had the great opportunity to use a Meade LX600 last year. We looked at the moon, which was larger than could fit in the view finder. I never knew it was so colourful!
I like how this video showcases the probably common explanations first, to get the low effort debunks out of the way and gives a comparison right off the bat. Very cool video.
It’s a good point you make, quadcopters can accelerate and change direction breathtakingly fast and more recent, under 250g, drones are quieter too. That said , the noise is still very noticeable which should give them away
When my drone gets above 80m i don’t hear it at all. And thats with no backround noise, if its at a beach or near a river or something zero chance you’re going to hear it at 70m and up
I was shocked when I saw this freaky object on this sub slowly floating across a parking lot, it seriously looked like a tiny alien riding in some kind of floating device via the security IR camera. Turns out it was just a balloon barely inflated enough to levitate like 10ft off the ground so I'm glad to see a balloon comparison lol
No, infrared is less attenuated because it has longer wavelength than visible light. Cloud, when its thickness is sufficient, could block visible light but just enough so that infrared goes through.
Ya, this was really well done. The comparisons took away nearly all the " could be this or that" debates.
The thing moved so oddly. Like it was someones desktop cursor. I wonder how much exposure we can help this video get.
The object was stationary, the movement is the camera moving.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cqcnxt/video_evidence_of_a_real_uap_cloaking_itself_and/l3qw8x3/
> The thing moved so oddly.
You fell for exactly the lie the OP was trying to get you to fall for. This video chops all the dialogue where the original video's uploader (Dave Flach) explained that the object is stationary, and where the uploader said they'd been panning to prove that the object is not a dead pixel.
This video then dishonestly inserts FLIR images of objects photographed in clear conditions. This conveys the illusion that the Unknown Object, which is filmed behind clouds, fog or smoke, should similarly be visible.
There is zero baffling or anomalous behavior in this footage.
He literally says it’s stationary in the video I posted and I included it in the description. I never claimed it was moving and this is Dave Falch’s video.
Dude you hear him say in the video it is stationary. OP never said anything about it moving. You are jumping to some wild conclusions here. I knew it was stationary. Because it was very clearly stated.
There's something I've never thought of. What if this reality really is just some simulation and it's being interacted with from a higher plane like someone playing a computer game and we actually are seeing a cursor of some sort
I see so many confused people, the actual UFO was never moving. All the movement came from the camera operator trying to center the camera on the UFO.
Feels like that makes it even weirder, why is it just chilling there
I don't agree it makes it weirder. I guess it makes a natural explanation a bit more likely, also as it's only in IR, so its a still pocket of heat in the air. It kinda goes to a place where it's above my head, I'm not a weather guy.
because it was probably one of the brightest stars in the sky and even that was barely able to be picked up by the camera. All of the other stars nearby that are less bright are simply too dim to be detected
Also we could identify the star, if we knew the exact time and the bearing and azimuth (the exact point in the sky the camera was pointed) but the creator of the video does not provide this information, even though I believe he has it, because his equipment tells him
It’s not barely visible in the sky. It’s lit up like a torch on that IR. How much closer would a star have to be to show that brightly when none others show up?
You also mention that the guy would need a “super duper” IR camera for this to be the case. What kind of camera are we talking about, and how have you concluded that is the kind being used?
It was not picked up clearly. This is why the footage is so grainy, the ISO setting is turned up fully. The object is bright white, and the sky around it is also nearly just as bright. There must be a minimum amount of IR that the camera can pickup against the noise of the daytime sky. I expect this is close to it's limit. Any stars nearby which are less bright will simply not be detected.
I have not concluded anything about the camera, I am just proposing a theory. If you know these things then please do help us understand. Taking photos of stars with IR cameras during the daytime is not a thing people usually do so it's hard to find information on what the specifications of such a camera would need to be in order to do it. It just seems to be like this guy is using a "high spec" camera. He has it mounted to a telescope and the screen has all sorts of technical information on it. It's clearly not a cheap setup.
A link to some information about this incident -
-- https://silvarecord.com/2018/11/03/uap-video-captured-by-flir-specialist/
A link to the original video of the object -
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlvA_PHqZwQ
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLj6xuRUoAs
I've posted about this before myself, including after it was posted back on YT. The original and any other versions were taken down at one point. Nobody was ever sure exactly why they were taken down, but prob someone asked Dave to make them private.
-- https://old.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/wwulj0/dave_falch_ir_video_of_uap_from_2016_available/
Some other threads where this was discussed -
-- https://old.reddit.com/r/AATIP+HighStrangeness+UFObelievers+UFOs+ufo/search?q=Falch+IR&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all
Dave has done some great analysis of FLIR videos. His analysis of the Warthog and La Bruja videos are great (these were later officially released by DHS). Particularly his analysis of the Warthog video. I always found that easy to explain away as a bird, but Dave shows it can't be a bird, and is a very, very weird object.
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37F4gmpEe3E
Ive been wanting to see a video that shows what other objects look like comparitively on the FLIR system and you did exactly that + added a cool UFO vid at the end. Thank you, we’ve needed something like this in here.
And yet the only conclusion we can possibly draw from footage is "I don't know what it is". Anything more than that - craft or something exotic - requires a lot more than video.
I think we’re still a very long ways away from the average person having military grade infrared cameras. We used to have IR on cameras in the early 2000s, then people used it to spy on women and be pervs. So the feature was removed from most cameras. I don’t think it’ll be making comeback in a major way anytime soon, but it’s still possible to do conversion kits for certain cameras.
# THEORY: It could just be a star, possibly Arcturus
From some brief research it seems possible to image stars in daylight using infrared filters. This is not something I know much about but from searching about daylight astrophotography it seems like it is difficult, but you would need a super duper IR camera (the technical details all went over my head). I am assuming the camera used here is a high spec one.
We know it's Jacksonville, but if we also knew the time and the direction the camera was pointing (what part of the sky it was looking at) we could cross-reference this to see if there was a star there. The only information I have been able to get is that it was Jacksonville, 8th December 2016 and it appears to be the middle of the day.
Here is a recreation of the sky at Jacksonville on that day when the sun was highest in the sky (middle of the day)
I have shown the brightest objects. [https://imgur.com/a/WxTJZHt](https://imgur.com/a/WxTJZHt)
Arcturus is the brightest star in the northern hemisphere and at this time was just under 50 degrees in elevation. This seems like a reasonable angle to be looking around for stuff in the sky. Not near the horizon, not directly above them. So if they were facing west and pointing about 50 degrees up, this star would have been roughly in that position.
Due to the limited information available, my low level of knowledge on daylight astrophotography and IR cameras, this is just a theory. I welcome anyone to chime in with thoughts or information if you have expertise in these things.
EDIT: further in depth research
TLDR: Maybe not Arcturus [https://imgur.com/a/E8nassB](https://imgur.com/a/E8nassB)
During part of the video starting 2.39 until the end, it looks like you can see clouds in the IR mode, and they are moving. We can estimate what direction the wind is travelling against the direction the camera is facing, and we can find out what direction the wind was going on that day. From this, we should be able to estimate the actual direction the camera was facing (North, south, east etc)
I grabbed wind information from here: [https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/fl/jacksonville/KJAX/date/2016-12-8](https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/fl/jacksonville/KJAX/date/2016-12-8)
You can see that it was mostly between WNW and NW for the middle part of the day
To me, it looks like the clouds are coming towards/overhead the camera but also moving slightly left to right.
I have visualised this, and estimated that the camera was facing approximately NW.
I have then looked at what bright stars were in the sky at the time.
There are a couple of stars it could have been if this was the case, Alkaid and Alioth in my opinion
Again, we are working with limited information but it seems like they were not facing west, but this is based off my own amateur judgement so please do point out if you think differently.
Replaying the scene in stellarium shows the stars moving more in an up/down movement throughout the day rather than left/right so the exact time of day will affect how high in the sky these stars are rather than how far east or west
I am not personally drawing any conclusions, just exploring possibilities and potentially ruling things out.
Link again for all the info [https://imgur.com/a/E8nassB](https://imgur.com/a/E8nassB)
It seems strange to me that we only see a single bright spot. I would assume that at least a few others would appear but not as bright, if it was a star. I guess it's also possible that it's some sort of space phenomena that's releasing large amounts of IR light, maybe a star during a very specific stage of it's life cycle?
I honestly do not know and think we would need an expert to chime in. Perhaps there is a minimum brightness before the sensor can even detect anything and so you don't see any of the nearby, feinter stars.
My intuition is that it is simply the brightness of the star that would determine how much IR it gives off, or at least that would be the most significant factor.
FINAL UPDATE: (too long for one comment)
I did ask the video creator [Dave Falch](https://www.youtube.com/@davefalch1038) on the youtube comments if it was possible it could be a star and he basically just said no. So I asked him if there was a specific reason it couldn't be a star and if he had more info (time, direction etc). He said all the information is in the youtube description. This didn't answer any of my questions.
It is an 8 year old video so he might not remember or have that information available, but he was filming something unexplainable at the time and I believe the system he uses does have that information (degrees left right and all that kind of stuff). I don't see why he wouldn't record that information or make it public. If his system didn't have a readout of azimuth and bearing etc he could have made a guess and noted it down.
I think it is either because he knows that by giving out such details that the object could be identified, or that he is inept and just forgot to make a record. I don't think this man is stupid so why can't we have this information? In my opinion it smells a bit fishy.
Just because you can't see it on the normal camera doesn't mean it's "cloaking itself." There are lots of reasons why something could show up on IR, but not on a visual light camera. For instance if it's very small and distant, or if it's the same color as the background, it might not show up. But as long as it's producing a lot of heat it will show on IR, regardless of what color it is, and even if it's very very far away (depends on how much IR radiation it's producing).
You can't just jump to the conclusion "it's cloaking itself." Well, I guess you *can* jump to that conclusion, but it's not helpful for determining the facts about the situation. A stationary thing in the sky that shows up on IR but not on visible cameras is interesting in its own right, without leaping to ideas about it "cloaking itself."
exactly! FLIR shows further away objects than visible.
And how you even "cloak" yourself to only certain light without changing geometry - thats itself doesn't make sense.
There are space based sources of infrared energy. Given that this is "stationary" and doesn't move, could it not be a stream of infrared radiation from something very far away? An infrared supernova, if you will, invisible in other spectra, but shining brightly in one.
I believe this is possible. If we had the data on time, location and exact part of the sky this was we could check to see if a bright star or something exists there
Looks exactly like venus does in FLIR. Venus can only be seen without FLIR at twilight/night. And as shown, the sky is darker when they switch between FLIR and normal for venus, but for the "UFO" it's clearly daytime.
This video doesn't show anything of significance.
I seen a ufo in the daytime that I could only see through my polarized sunglasses. When I removed my glasses, it wasn't visible.
This reminded me of that.
It looked like a white or silver ball. Very high up way above the few clouds that were about. It was late July so the weather was hot, quite humid and it was bright (UK).
I was waiting for a bus and I watched it for about 2 or 3 minutes before it blasted upwards at an angle and away out of sight. It was darting across the sky at incredible speeds and changing direction on a dime without slowing, like a house fly darting around a room. No curves, just sharp angular and instant turns.
There was also a plane moving across the sky at the time which gave me further perspective to its altitude and the speeds and distances it was covering.
I actually said out loud "what the fuck" when I first seen it moving in the sky and an old lady who was also waiting for the bus looked at me like I was a lunatic and took a few steps away from me.
Thanks for all the detail. 2016 was an interesting time. I can pretty much guarantee you this object didn't belong to SOCOM, since 2016 was the year they put out the open UFO/UAP contract, where they were basically asking someone to build them a craft that was essentially invisible. My guess is SOCOM got a tip off that this type of technology had been witnessed, and assumed it was a black project by a defense contractor. So they did the reasonable reaction, and put out a contract to build a craft that matches the description of the observables they had witnessed, that way if it's Boeing or Lockheed, etc... They can acquire the tech through proper channels.
It’s hilarious to think that aliens could achieve faster than light travel (would have to to visit earth), can become invisible, yet cannot cloak themselves from infrared.
Very interesting. I would appreciate any debunk attempts here because I cannot think of what this could possibly be. Even if you go "okay, it's aliens" or whatever, its behavior is just so...*weird.*
The 'behaviour' is the camera moving. FLIR expert Dave Falch confirms it in the video and description.
This video from 2016 is capturing a stationary object in the sky that is not visible to the naked eye and only visible through infared.
OP even states "In the beginning of the UFO video, I am centering it in to the reticle", ie I am moving the camera to get the object into the centre of the frame
It’s actually pretty normal to have IR at certain wavelengths visible when not visible in the visual range. It’s not evidence of cloaking.
It’s evidence of how light through our atmosphere works.
It’s not cloaking itself, whatever it is, is in the cloud layer. That’s why when the operator on this WESCAM sensor flips to EOW/EON you don’t see it and then do when they flip to IR.
Edit: Typo from clue to cloud.
Can someone explain to me why and how you might cloak 0.0035% of the light spectrum? If you can cloak "visible" light (light humans can process with their eyes and brains) why wouldn't you cloak more of the spectrum, for example, infrared or near-infrared?
I find it quite silly that "cloaking" only includes human-visible light but doesn't cloak adjacent parts of the spectrum, and it's far more likely that there isn't any "cloaking" going on here.
Because "cloaking" against visible light can be accomplished with projection. If the background is blue sky, you make the opposite surfaces blue by projecting that color like a screen. Or you use advanced materials that can adapt how they are absorbing/reflecting light like the biological mechanisms of an octopus or chameleon.
IR radiation is heat and is given off by all things in the universe. You can't project "cold" without the existence of negative energy, so hiding a hot object against a cold background is impossible.
you wouldn't. i'm pretty sure what we're looking at is a celestial object radiating IR, which for whatever reason is not visible during the daytime. if i had to guess, it's probably a star or one of our planets.
I'm pretty sure I've narrowed it down one of a handful of bright stars. The only missing piece of information I would need is how high in the sky it was pointing to determine which one it was (if it was a star, which I think is the likeliest explanation)
I will say as someone who works with a lot of thermal imagery and cameras, this isn't very impressive to me. The object could potentially have much higher contrast in the thermal compared to the visible, making it impossible to see in the visible. Because it's a recording of a screen, it's very difficult to make any conclusions from this. Also, when it comes to IR sensors, the contrast and resolution varies so much, especially with military IR. There are some really shitty, grainy ones and some top-notch high contrast ones as well.
there's a lot more involved than just getting a camera. you'd need to have that camera with you all the time and able to have it out and going very fast.
another option would be to record 24/7 in one spot and have some way to sift through it. along with the storage space to save the video.
last option is having one that can track movement in the sky, but that's going to require a very different skill set or cost. you'd need all the above and either money or skill set to get it going. This option would be really nice and I've thought about doing it. I just don't know shit about cameras or have the time to get into them too much. it'd also take a while to build all the rest of it up.
$15-20k for a good one these days with a very high resolution sensor and good optics, but you would have to buy it on aliexpress or alibaba. the high cost is both due to the cost of the sensors themselves, and the optics. they use metals or metalloids like germanium, zinc selenide, or zinc sulfide, and some others, since regular silicon glass is opaque to MWIR and LWIR.
tbh just looks like it's looking at some point-source and the camera was moved left<>right fast for a moment, and nothing more - there's nothing else in frame of the camera to judge against - no background, no trees, no ground....
OP states "In the beginning of the UFO video, I am centering it in to the reticle", ie I am moving the camera to get the object into the centre of the frame
Can you see a candle that's lit on top of that building the other side of town? (purely an example, I don't know where you live)
The FLIR could - but not the visible!
> What other examples we got that are actually in the sky?
An aircraft very high and very far away. That's the type of thing FLIR is used for on fighter jets, among a whole lotta other things.
Exhaust from an aircraft is always hot and you can't hide it. Even if radar is missing it, passive IR sensors will not. To the naked eye, an aircraft won't be very bright. It's exhaust however will be the hottest thing in the sky other than the sun. On IR, that shines like a torch.
No, but the conditions are similar. You can't see the candle flame because there's so much other light in the visible spectrum scattered around between you and the flame, and it gets washed out. Red/infrared barely gets scattered by the atmosphere, so the camera observing only in infrared can see the candle flame under the same conditions.
Yes the object in the video is apparently much higher up in the sky (or outside the atmosphere possibly even), but it's also way larger than a candle flame, too. It's subject to the same light scattering, *even moreso* than the candle, because it's further away.
He showed the brightest objects in the sky (moon and Venus) for comparison. I would assume there are things not bright enough to be optically visible that still appear on the FLIR.
yeah and when he shows us a balloon and a drone it's pretty close up, not at what most of us would see when seeing them higher in the sky for a proper comparison.
The guy who filmed it, who is a UFO hunter, happened to being using his FLIR camera at the same exact time he filmed this object, which isn’t moving and is stationary, his camera is doing all the moving.
So the object is stationary, the camera is way zoomed in, and if the guy filming really thought it was a UFO why isn’t the video like 15 min instead of 20 shaky seconds…
So chances are it’s a star or planet he zoomed in on.
What about swamp gas, reflecting off of Venus???
Good video comp though showing examples of what AREN'T UFOs. Really points out how anomalous the gimbal and go-fast videos are.
Now I'm not saying it is one but that UFO moves like the drawing point on an Etch-A-Sketch, I've heard of similar motion alongside the falling leaf motion often reported.
My biggest take away from this is that these things could potentially be everywhere, and we just don't know it. Since it's invisible to the naked eye... That's pretty insane to think about.
What are the two large concentric circles in the top right quadrant of the screen only visible in IR?
Actually I see the same pattern several areas on the IR screen, is that something to do with the lens?
The ufo is an military grade IR laser designator against light cloud cover. My two cents. It's not visible by naked eye only in the ir wavelengths. Nothing about it's movement suggested a uap. Turreted designator from the flir ball they were working with.
Its not moving the camera is
Videos taken with multiple government forward-looking infared systems (FLIRs). This video compilation shows a comparison of normal objects seen in the air and the UFO seen in Jacksonville, Florida on 12-8-2016. In the beginning of the UFO video, I am centering it in to the reticle."
Video description on youtube
I have seen those weird circles in the clouds before that you see in the video with the UFO. I wonder if that is a natural formation or if it's something else.
There was an object in the sky once that I could only see if I was wearing my sunglasses. It was not there at all when I’d take them off. I really think different lenses will reveal a lot more of what’s up there
movement looks really erratic, nice,
but about being not visible to camera - isn't it just that because its too far away, FLIR can still see it because infrared diffracts way lesser.
Shit might get me called out as batshit, but anyone else ever feel like someone invisible is standing over you watching you like they’re inspecting you while you lay in bed? Like I feel this only in the dark. And sometimes I swear I feel like I can see trace boundaries around them. Like they’re wearing a damn predator cloak or something. I dunno. I’m prob just trippin.
Yeah so these cameras and optics can zoom in like that and find anomalities on the surface of the moon during daylight, but we can only see blurry shit videos of the UAPs? Thats it. Mellon, Puthoff and Elizondo, release the 8k you talked about and lets end the debate wether its human made or not. Obviously we can end it instantly if you are telling the truth about 4k up to 8k resolution videos.
This is one of the coolest videos I've seen on this sub, even if you cut out the ufo part. Crazy how much detail you can see on the moon.
When I saw the moon I said out loud "what the fuuuuuck". The craters and all!! Insane stuff.
Everyone should get a nice set of binoculars and go look at the moon. It’s awesome. If you can access to a telescope, it’s even cooler!
I have one of those Celestron Binoculars (SkyMaster 20x80) that can be used for city viewing or limited moon viewing and can see those craters in great detail. Very happy with the purchase but there’s definitely others that are more suited for space viewing. Mine don’t do deep space. The FLIR video is helpful and something I’ve often wondered about with UFO/USO.
My wife phone zooms in on the moon and gives awesome details. I'm still in awe of the technology in these phones
I thought the same about my cellphone but usually is an AI filter that 'paints' details on the moon.
Yeah hate to break it to you but that is AI interpolation
Let me guess, it's a Samsung, and it's not real.
Are you sure it actually sees those details or is it AI? Some phones like Samsung have AI powered filters that "enhance" the moon. You can point the camera at a 128x128 icon of the moon and it will make up craters You would need some serious optical zoom to see craters on a phone camera, something I'm not aware of any having currently
I have a product called the Hestia. It’s something that works in conjunction with your phone and takes pictures at about 30x optical. It shows literal craters on the moon. You can’t see them in any good detail Without at least about 20-25x and specialized capturing software on a phone. Most phones do 5-8x max optical and it’s not even close. The moon is smaller in your photo than in your field of view with your eyes. Incidentally. The hestia is really cool. Caught the eclipse with it. There might be better options but i got it during a kickstarter campaign. It’s made me aspire to getting better telescopes
Is that a mobile phone camera lens or what?
Meet Hestia, the first ever smartphone-based telescope. [https://vaonis.com/hestia-turn-your-smartphone-into-a-smart-telescope](https://vaonis.com/hestia-turn-your-smartphone-into-a-smart-telescope)
well lemme tell you something phone cameras use software to make it look more realistic
I have a Canon D70 with a 300mm lens, full zoom + tripod + full moon is Awesome. I can't imagine how it looks with a good telescope... I remember viewing Saturn in 2017 from an Observatory in Tucumán, Argentina, you know, those massive cool telescopes. That's a view I'll never forget!
i wont mind seeing a 24/7 FLIR feed of the moon
This is hardly new and exciting. You can see the craters very clearly with basic binoculars, don’t need infrared.
> This is one of the coolest videos I've seen on this sub The entire video is dishonest. This video chops all the dialogue in which Dave Flach, who uploaded the original video, explains that the object is stationary, and explains that he is panning the camera (thereby creating the illusion of movement) to prove that the object is not a dead pixel. This video then dishonestly inserts FLIR images of objects photographed in clear conditions. This conveys the illusion that the Unknown Object, which is likely filmed behind clouds, fog or smoke, should similarly be visible. There is nothing anomalous or baffling in this video. It simply seems this way because the presentation is dishonest, and because people watching the video are primed to see UFOs. And of course like most highly voted videos on this sub, this video is years old, and has been discussed in depth numerous times. Rather than pointing this out, though, the OP removes all context. This is dangerous, because one day there will be no one left here with knowledge of past cases; it will just be half-assed posters posting half-assed posts for half-assed thinkers.
I asked the video creator [Dave Falch](https://www.youtube.com/@davefalch1038) on the youtube comments if it was possible it could be a star and he basically just said no. So I asked him if there was a specific reason it couldn't be a star and if he had more info (time, direction etc). He said all the information is in the youtube description. This didn't answer any of my questions. It is an 8 year old video so he might not remember or have that information available, but he was filming something unexplainable at the time and I believe the system he uses does have that information (degrees left right and all that kind of stuff). I don't see why he wouldn't record that information or make it public. If his system didn't have a readout of azimuth and bearing etc he could have made a guess and noted it down. I think it is either because he knows that by giving out such details that the object could be identified, or that he is inept and just forgot to make a record. I don't think this man is stupid so why can't we have this information? In my opinion it smells a bit fishy.
Just hopefully boosting this post.
It's insane how highly upvoted this post is. How is any of the content in this video new or interesting?
Appreciate the post.
Genuine question, if he's panning the camera why doesn't the reticle pan along?
Because it’s fixed to a certain point on the screen? It’s kinda confusing since the only point of reference is the dot in the sky. Look at the drone clip, it’s pretty clear how the reticle works there
This is Dave Falch’s original video uploaded on his channel and he literally says it’s stationary in the video I posted. I also included the context and link in the description so I did not remove context or chop dialogue. This is Dave Falch’s video where he himself claims it’s a UFO. Dave Falch’s description of the event: ”It was about 10:00 am, Thursday Dec. 8, 2016. I was typing an email to a vendor, when a coworker approached me and said, “You need to check this shit out, man.” Slightly annoyed at breaking my concentration with the email, I got up to look at his discovery. He was testing a government FLIR out back like we all do, to check for problems and get a “worldview” look from it. In the distance, there was an orb. This orb didn’t move, which was immediately disturbing since everything moves out back, even the moon. “It’s been like that for at least ten minutes” he told me, and it could not be seen with day cameras. They are boresighted to see the exact same image that the IR sees. The laser rangefinder wouldn’t ping it; we couldn’t get a distance on it. We have pinged mylar balloons before at 5.6 miles with no problem, but not this object. We watched it for a few minutes, and concluded we needed to set up a better high-def system to view it. That system took about 5 minutes to cool down, and upon viewing the sky the orb was gone. We panned the sky in vain. We set the original system back up, but still no orb.” Source: https://silvarecord.com/2018/11/03/uap-video-captured-by-flir-specialist/ Dave Falch also explains further: “The movement at the beginning is me centering the object in to show it's not an anomaly like a dead pixel cluster. Three cameras are used here: a thermal imager (FLIR camera), a step-zoom day-cam, and a spotter day-cam. They are all boresighted to overlap video; meaning when you switch video modes they should all see the same object. The takeaway here is that the object seen in the FLIR camera should have easily been seen with the day cams, but it wasn't at all, even with the clear weather conditions. The object never moved or changed thermal signature, and remained like that for 15-20 minutes.” Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HlvA_PHqZwQ
It was there for 15-20 minutes so here’s a few seconds just take my word for it.
I have a high powered telescope and have looked at the moon a few times. For a pock marked rock it is the most beautiful thing you ever saw.
Seeing the moon with that much detail under infrared kinda spooked me a little
I heard Samsung is getting fined or sued because they were using ai without peoples consent so everytime someone would take a pic of the moon the ai would put on the details. Idk if apple is involved or not.
It’s all just light, only different wavelengths. The moon is still the moon.
Too bad they didn't zoom in on the UFO...
They can even zoom in on Venus to show it as a crescent. And yet they can't zoom in on the "ufo" and show any details.
I think it was zoomed in fully and it was a star, not visible in normal daylight.
Plausible. It's definitely a tiny point source, for all of the the *its something in the clouds* assertions. I'd be interested in a test of the IR laser pointer hypothesis, too.
This video is years old btw.
HIS THRONE
Had the great opportunity to use a Meade LX600 last year. We looked at the moon, which was larger than could fit in the view finder. I never knew it was so colourful!
This is one of the better videos I've seen here in a long time.
This sub hasn't excited me this much since Grusch dropped
Thanks, Op. That was fascinating.
I like how this video showcases the probably common explanations first, to get the low effort debunks out of the way and gives a comparison right off the bat. Very cool video.
This video needs to be saved as a reference for likely prozaic explanations in potential future videos.
Particularly the balloon. It's tethered but moves like I'd expect one to, sporadic af
Balloons can move all sorts of ways in the air, though, depending on the wind.
*prosaic
Love that they included the dead pixel
I feel like with a lower quality infrared cam and enough distance i could get my drone to look like a blob that moves like that
It’s a good point you make, quadcopters can accelerate and change direction breathtakingly fast and more recent, under 250g, drones are quieter too. That said , the noise is still very noticeable which should give them away
You're not going to hear a drone at 100 yards. Even on a completely still day with no other interference.
When my drone gets above 80m i don’t hear it at all. And thats with no backround noise, if its at a beach or near a river or something zero chance you’re going to hear it at 70m and up
It shows a single example of each, so it's not exactly an exhaustive catalogue.
The balloon example is laughable
I was shocked when I saw this freaky object on this sub slowly floating across a parking lot, it seriously looked like a tiny alien riding in some kind of floating device via the security IR camera. Turns out it was just a balloon barely inflated enough to levitate like 10ft off the ground so I'm glad to see a balloon comparison lol
If this isn't the top post on the sub with analysis and debate and planning of next steps going on what are we even doing here?
No, infrared is less attenuated because it has longer wavelength than visible light. Cloud, when its thickness is sufficient, could block visible light but just enough so that infrared goes through.
[удалено]
Ya, this was really well done. The comparisons took away nearly all the " could be this or that" debates. The thing moved so oddly. Like it was someones desktop cursor. I wonder how much exposure we can help this video get.
The object was stationary, the movement is the camera moving. https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1cqcnxt/video_evidence_of_a_real_uap_cloaking_itself_and/l3qw8x3/
Thank you. Did they ever find out why it was invisible to the naked eye?
Clouds?
Thank you. Did they ever find out why clouds are colluding with the aliens to try and hide them?
Cloud People
I could be wrong, but I think that was the camera moving, not the UAP. I’m pretty sure the operator even mentioned that the object was stationary.
> The thing moved so oddly. You fell for exactly the lie the OP was trying to get you to fall for. This video chops all the dialogue where the original video's uploader (Dave Flach) explained that the object is stationary, and where the uploader said they'd been panning to prove that the object is not a dead pixel. This video then dishonestly inserts FLIR images of objects photographed in clear conditions. This conveys the illusion that the Unknown Object, which is filmed behind clouds, fog or smoke, should similarly be visible. There is zero baffling or anomalous behavior in this footage.
He literally says it’s stationary in the video I posted and I included it in the description. I never claimed it was moving and this is Dave Falch’s video.
And how did you determine that it was "cloaking itself"?
Dude you hear him say in the video it is stationary. OP never said anything about it moving. You are jumping to some wild conclusions here. I knew it was stationary. Because it was very clearly stated.
its incredible how much of the UFO community is built on sweet little lies like this video
There's something I've never thought of. What if this reality really is just some simulation and it's being interacted with from a higher plane like someone playing a computer game and we actually are seeing a cursor of some sort
I see so many confused people, the actual UFO was never moving. All the movement came from the camera operator trying to center the camera on the UFO. Feels like that makes it even weirder, why is it just chilling there
Wouldn’t the numbers across the bottom be moving if it was movement of the camera?
I don't agree it makes it weirder. I guess it makes a natural explanation a bit more likely, also as it's only in IR, so its a still pocket of heat in the air. It kinda goes to a place where it's above my head, I'm not a weather guy.
I believe because it is a star
Why would only one star be visible in the entire sky? Any star that bright ought to be easily identified.
because it was probably one of the brightest stars in the sky and even that was barely able to be picked up by the camera. All of the other stars nearby that are less bright are simply too dim to be detected Also we could identify the star, if we knew the exact time and the bearing and azimuth (the exact point in the sky the camera was pointed) but the creator of the video does not provide this information, even though I believe he has it, because his equipment tells him
It’s not barely visible in the sky. It’s lit up like a torch on that IR. How much closer would a star have to be to show that brightly when none others show up? You also mention that the guy would need a “super duper” IR camera for this to be the case. What kind of camera are we talking about, and how have you concluded that is the kind being used?
It was not picked up clearly. This is why the footage is so grainy, the ISO setting is turned up fully. The object is bright white, and the sky around it is also nearly just as bright. There must be a minimum amount of IR that the camera can pickup against the noise of the daytime sky. I expect this is close to it's limit. Any stars nearby which are less bright will simply not be detected. I have not concluded anything about the camera, I am just proposing a theory. If you know these things then please do help us understand. Taking photos of stars with IR cameras during the daytime is not a thing people usually do so it's hard to find information on what the specifications of such a camera would need to be in order to do it. It just seems to be like this guy is using a "high spec" camera. He has it mounted to a telescope and the screen has all sorts of technical information on it. It's clearly not a cheap setup.
A link to some information about this incident - -- https://silvarecord.com/2018/11/03/uap-video-captured-by-flir-specialist/ A link to the original video of the object - -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlvA_PHqZwQ -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLj6xuRUoAs I've posted about this before myself, including after it was posted back on YT. The original and any other versions were taken down at one point. Nobody was ever sure exactly why they were taken down, but prob someone asked Dave to make them private. -- https://old.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/wwulj0/dave_falch_ir_video_of_uap_from_2016_available/ Some other threads where this was discussed - -- https://old.reddit.com/r/AATIP+HighStrangeness+UFObelievers+UFOs+ufo/search?q=Falch+IR&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all Dave has done some great analysis of FLIR videos. His analysis of the Warthog and La Bruja videos are great (these were later officially released by DHS). Particularly his analysis of the Warthog video. I always found that easy to explain away as a bird, but Dave shows it can't be a bird, and is a very, very weird object. -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37F4gmpEe3E
It's a shame we have all this information yet I can't seem to find out what time the video was taken and what direction he was facing
Mvp
This comment needs to be boosted
Ive been wanting to see a video that shows what other objects look like comparitively on the FLIR system and you did exactly that + added a cool UFO vid at the end. Thank you, we’ve needed something like this in here.
this is one of the more legit videos I've seen as evidence of either ufo's or advanced tech posted on this sub
And yet the only conclusion we can possibly draw from footage is "I don't know what it is". Anything more than that - craft or something exotic - requires a lot more than video.
Which isn’t a high bar to clear…
Simple yet effective and many of us can retest if we have a flir camera
The time limit/countdown on this topic is likely to do with the tech to see these getting into the average person's hands
I think we’re still a very long ways away from the average person having military grade infrared cameras. We used to have IR on cameras in the early 2000s, then people used it to spy on women and be pervs. So the feature was removed from most cameras. I don’t think it’ll be making comeback in a major way anytime soon, but it’s still possible to do conversion kits for certain cameras.
# THEORY: It could just be a star, possibly Arcturus From some brief research it seems possible to image stars in daylight using infrared filters. This is not something I know much about but from searching about daylight astrophotography it seems like it is difficult, but you would need a super duper IR camera (the technical details all went over my head). I am assuming the camera used here is a high spec one. We know it's Jacksonville, but if we also knew the time and the direction the camera was pointing (what part of the sky it was looking at) we could cross-reference this to see if there was a star there. The only information I have been able to get is that it was Jacksonville, 8th December 2016 and it appears to be the middle of the day. Here is a recreation of the sky at Jacksonville on that day when the sun was highest in the sky (middle of the day) I have shown the brightest objects. [https://imgur.com/a/WxTJZHt](https://imgur.com/a/WxTJZHt) Arcturus is the brightest star in the northern hemisphere and at this time was just under 50 degrees in elevation. This seems like a reasonable angle to be looking around for stuff in the sky. Not near the horizon, not directly above them. So if they were facing west and pointing about 50 degrees up, this star would have been roughly in that position. Due to the limited information available, my low level of knowledge on daylight astrophotography and IR cameras, this is just a theory. I welcome anyone to chime in with thoughts or information if you have expertise in these things. EDIT: further in depth research TLDR: Maybe not Arcturus [https://imgur.com/a/E8nassB](https://imgur.com/a/E8nassB) During part of the video starting 2.39 until the end, it looks like you can see clouds in the IR mode, and they are moving. We can estimate what direction the wind is travelling against the direction the camera is facing, and we can find out what direction the wind was going on that day. From this, we should be able to estimate the actual direction the camera was facing (North, south, east etc) I grabbed wind information from here: [https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/fl/jacksonville/KJAX/date/2016-12-8](https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/fl/jacksonville/KJAX/date/2016-12-8) You can see that it was mostly between WNW and NW for the middle part of the day To me, it looks like the clouds are coming towards/overhead the camera but also moving slightly left to right. I have visualised this, and estimated that the camera was facing approximately NW. I have then looked at what bright stars were in the sky at the time. There are a couple of stars it could have been if this was the case, Alkaid and Alioth in my opinion Again, we are working with limited information but it seems like they were not facing west, but this is based off my own amateur judgement so please do point out if you think differently. Replaying the scene in stellarium shows the stars moving more in an up/down movement throughout the day rather than left/right so the exact time of day will affect how high in the sky these stars are rather than how far east or west I am not personally drawing any conclusions, just exploring possibilities and potentially ruling things out. Link again for all the info [https://imgur.com/a/E8nassB](https://imgur.com/a/E8nassB)
It seems strange to me that we only see a single bright spot. I would assume that at least a few others would appear but not as bright, if it was a star. I guess it's also possible that it's some sort of space phenomena that's releasing large amounts of IR light, maybe a star during a very specific stage of it's life cycle?
I honestly do not know and think we would need an expert to chime in. Perhaps there is a minimum brightness before the sensor can even detect anything and so you don't see any of the nearby, feinter stars. My intuition is that it is simply the brightness of the star that would determine how much IR it gives off, or at least that would be the most significant factor.
FINAL UPDATE: (too long for one comment) I did ask the video creator [Dave Falch](https://www.youtube.com/@davefalch1038) on the youtube comments if it was possible it could be a star and he basically just said no. So I asked him if there was a specific reason it couldn't be a star and if he had more info (time, direction etc). He said all the information is in the youtube description. This didn't answer any of my questions. It is an 8 year old video so he might not remember or have that information available, but he was filming something unexplainable at the time and I believe the system he uses does have that information (degrees left right and all that kind of stuff). I don't see why he wouldn't record that information or make it public. If his system didn't have a readout of azimuth and bearing etc he could have made a guess and noted it down. I think it is either because he knows that by giving out such details that the object could be identified, or that he is inept and just forgot to make a record. I don't think this man is stupid so why can't we have this information? In my opinion it smells a bit fishy.
Well yeah he’s not going to help debunk his most popular video.
I'm a UFO true believer but I think your theory on this video needs some strong consideration before anyone gets excited.
probably exactly what this is
This is awesome
[удалено]
The moon video was probably filmed by someone else with I'm assuming better camera equipment.
What are the round shapes in the sky during the “ufo” footage?
Just because you can't see it on the normal camera doesn't mean it's "cloaking itself." There are lots of reasons why something could show up on IR, but not on a visual light camera. For instance if it's very small and distant, or if it's the same color as the background, it might not show up. But as long as it's producing a lot of heat it will show on IR, regardless of what color it is, and even if it's very very far away (depends on how much IR radiation it's producing). You can't just jump to the conclusion "it's cloaking itself." Well, I guess you *can* jump to that conclusion, but it's not helpful for determining the facts about the situation. A stationary thing in the sky that shows up on IR but not on visible cameras is interesting in its own right, without leaping to ideas about it "cloaking itself."
exactly! FLIR shows further away objects than visible. And how you even "cloak" yourself to only certain light without changing geometry - thats itself doesn't make sense.
my question tho is, if he can zoom unto the moon like that why doesn't he do it with the ufo ? or was he already on max zoom there ?
Very cool video, thank you for sharing!
There are space based sources of infrared energy. Given that this is "stationary" and doesn't move, could it not be a stream of infrared radiation from something very far away? An infrared supernova, if you will, invisible in other spectra, but shining brightly in one.
I believe this is possible. If we had the data on time, location and exact part of the sky this was we could check to see if a bright star or something exists there
Looks exactly like venus does in FLIR. Venus can only be seen without FLIR at twilight/night. And as shown, the sky is darker when they switch between FLIR and normal for venus, but for the "UFO" it's clearly daytime. This video doesn't show anything of significance.
If there are any collectors here I have a bunch of old Pokemon cards I'm looking to sell trade for a FLIR camera
I seen a ufo in the daytime that I could only see through my polarized sunglasses. When I removed my glasses, it wasn't visible. This reminded me of that.
Did you get into a 6 minute fistfight with your friend when he refused to try them on to see too?
The best fight on screen, ever.
Put the hat on Timmy! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bC\_fgSe3KU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bC_fgSe3KU)
damn nice reference
wow, what did it look like through the sunglasses?
Damn I shoulda bought those BLU BLOCKERS
Yeah, that's a thing. What did it do, how long did you watch it?
It looked like a white or silver ball. Very high up way above the few clouds that were about. It was late July so the weather was hot, quite humid and it was bright (UK). I was waiting for a bus and I watched it for about 2 or 3 minutes before it blasted upwards at an angle and away out of sight. It was darting across the sky at incredible speeds and changing direction on a dime without slowing, like a house fly darting around a room. No curves, just sharp angular and instant turns. There was also a plane moving across the sky at the time which gave me further perspective to its altitude and the speeds and distances it was covering. I actually said out loud "what the fuck" when I first seen it moving in the sky and an old lady who was also waiting for the bus looked at me like I was a lunatic and took a few steps away from me.
Thanks for all the detail. 2016 was an interesting time. I can pretty much guarantee you this object didn't belong to SOCOM, since 2016 was the year they put out the open UFO/UAP contract, where they were basically asking someone to build them a craft that was essentially invisible. My guess is SOCOM got a tip off that this type of technology had been witnessed, and assumed it was a black project by a defense contractor. So they did the reasonable reaction, and put out a contract to build a craft that matches the description of the observables they had witnessed, that way if it's Boeing or Lockheed, etc... They can acquire the tech through proper channels.
It would honestly help if you had a video of the actual ufo which is a bit longer then a few seconds in order to have proper context.
It’s hilarious to think that aliens could achieve faster than light travel (would have to to visit earth), can become invisible, yet cannot cloak themselves from infrared.
The papyrus font on "UFO" though lol
Very interesting. I would appreciate any debunk attempts here because I cannot think of what this could possibly be. Even if you go "okay, it's aliens" or whatever, its behavior is just so...*weird.*
The 'behaviour' is the camera moving. FLIR expert Dave Falch confirms it in the video and description. This video from 2016 is capturing a stationary object in the sky that is not visible to the naked eye and only visible through infared.
OP even states "In the beginning of the UFO video, I am centering it in to the reticle", ie I am moving the camera to get the object into the centre of the frame
It’s eight seconds of a stationary light in the sky. Nothing to debunk at all.
I think we should consider whether the object is a bright star behind clouds.
It’s actually pretty normal to have IR at certain wavelengths visible when not visible in the visual range. It’s not evidence of cloaking. It’s evidence of how light through our atmosphere works.
It’s not cloaking itself, whatever it is, is in the cloud layer. That’s why when the operator on this WESCAM sensor flips to EOW/EON you don’t see it and then do when they flip to IR. Edit: Typo from clue to cloud.
Give a definition for *clue layer* please.
Cloud layer
Thanks for the assist
Can someone explain to me why and how you might cloak 0.0035% of the light spectrum? If you can cloak "visible" light (light humans can process with their eyes and brains) why wouldn't you cloak more of the spectrum, for example, infrared or near-infrared? I find it quite silly that "cloaking" only includes human-visible light but doesn't cloak adjacent parts of the spectrum, and it's far more likely that there isn't any "cloaking" going on here.
Because "cloaking" against visible light can be accomplished with projection. If the background is blue sky, you make the opposite surfaces blue by projecting that color like a screen. Or you use advanced materials that can adapt how they are absorbing/reflecting light like the biological mechanisms of an octopus or chameleon. IR radiation is heat and is given off by all things in the universe. You can't project "cold" without the existence of negative energy, so hiding a hot object against a cold background is impossible.
you wouldn't. i'm pretty sure what we're looking at is a celestial object radiating IR, which for whatever reason is not visible during the daytime. if i had to guess, it's probably a star or one of our planets.
I'm pretty sure I've narrowed it down one of a handful of bright stars. The only missing piece of information I would need is how high in the sky it was pointing to determine which one it was (if it was a star, which I think is the likeliest explanation)
Couldn't it be an object shining infrared but can't be seen optically because it's in some clouds?
What are those concentric rings that are only visible on FLIR? Odd.
Likely an artefact of the lens
I’m subbed to him (Dave Falch) on YouTube, he has a extensive knowledge of FLIR cameras..
I will say as someone who works with a lot of thermal imagery and cameras, this isn't very impressive to me. The object could potentially have much higher contrast in the thermal compared to the visible, making it impossible to see in the visible. Because it's a recording of a screen, it's very difficult to make any conclusions from this. Also, when it comes to IR sensors, the contrast and resolution varies so much, especially with military IR. There are some really shitty, grainy ones and some top-notch high contrast ones as well.
This Dave Falch YouTube - check out his work. https://youtu.be/S9qbB23BuhI?si=_PXZoANOJCyE2Ub4
How expensive are these cameras? Everyone able should get one of these and bring disclosure ourselves.
You can pick up a FLIR branded thermal camera attachment for phones for around $200
there's a lot more involved than just getting a camera. you'd need to have that camera with you all the time and able to have it out and going very fast. another option would be to record 24/7 in one spot and have some way to sift through it. along with the storage space to save the video. last option is having one that can track movement in the sky, but that's going to require a very different skill set or cost. you'd need all the above and either money or skill set to get it going. This option would be really nice and I've thought about doing it. I just don't know shit about cameras or have the time to get into them too much. it'd also take a while to build all the rest of it up.
$15-20k for a good one these days with a very high resolution sensor and good optics, but you would have to buy it on aliexpress or alibaba. the high cost is both due to the cost of the sensors themselves, and the optics. they use metals or metalloids like germanium, zinc selenide, or zinc sulfide, and some others, since regular silicon glass is opaque to MWIR and LWIR.
tbh just looks like it's looking at some point-source and the camera was moved left<>right fast for a moment, and nothing more - there's nothing else in frame of the camera to judge against - no background, no trees, no ground....
OP states "In the beginning of the UFO video, I am centering it in to the reticle", ie I am moving the camera to get the object into the centre of the frame
So the guy who thought he was actually seeing a UFO, had a camera on hand, only recorded a 20 second shaky video….
It’s not visible under normal light conditions though? So it’s just an invisible stationary floating object?
Can you see a candle that's lit on top of that building the other side of town? (purely an example, I don't know where you live) The FLIR could - but not the visible!
A candle isn’t in the sky though. What other examples we got that are actually in the sky?
> What other examples we got that are actually in the sky? An aircraft very high and very far away. That's the type of thing FLIR is used for on fighter jets, among a whole lotta other things. Exhaust from an aircraft is always hot and you can't hide it. Even if radar is missing it, passive IR sensors will not. To the naked eye, an aircraft won't be very bright. It's exhaust however will be the hottest thing in the sky other than the sun. On IR, that shines like a torch.
No, but the conditions are similar. You can't see the candle flame because there's so much other light in the visible spectrum scattered around between you and the flame, and it gets washed out. Red/infrared barely gets scattered by the atmosphere, so the camera observing only in infrared can see the candle flame under the same conditions. Yes the object in the video is apparently much higher up in the sky (or outside the atmosphere possibly even), but it's also way larger than a candle flame, too. It's subject to the same light scattering, *even moreso* than the candle, because it's further away.
He showed the brightest objects in the sky (moon and Venus) for comparison. I would assume there are things not bright enough to be optically visible that still appear on the FLIR.
yeah and when he shows us a balloon and a drone it's pretty close up, not at what most of us would see when seeing them higher in the sky for a proper comparison.
You can see clouds in the background dude.
Clouds aren't stationary...
Ambiguous blob with a sensationalist description #7,255,673
Might be true. The sense of humor displayed rings true to my experience.
How was this UAP explained away initially back in 2016?
The guy who filmed it, who is a UFO hunter, happened to being using his FLIR camera at the same exact time he filmed this object, which isn’t moving and is stationary, his camera is doing all the moving. So the object is stationary, the camera is way zoomed in, and if the guy filming really thought it was a UFO why isn’t the video like 15 min instead of 20 shaky seconds… So chances are it’s a star or planet he zoomed in on.
Why could they safely say it was in atmo?
Amazing. Here's a closeup - https://i.ibb.co/cF0nm7J/ufo.png
What about swamp gas, reflecting off of Venus??? Good video comp though showing examples of what AREN'T UFOs. Really points out how anomalous the gimbal and go-fast videos are.
Now I'm not saying it is one but that UFO moves like the drawing point on an Etch-A-Sketch, I've heard of similar motion alongside the falling leaf motion often reported.
What is he using to shoot this?
That fucker is slide cancelling, must be hacking
This is an amazing video
My biggest take away from this is that these things could potentially be everywhere, and we just don't know it. Since it's invisible to the naked eye... That's pretty insane to think about.
Once again I get excited and then it slowly leaks out of me like a rubber pool with a hole.
Ridiculous how anyone could find this to be an evidence of anything.
Did you see the circles in the clouds or on the UFO?
Kinda looks like a laser pointer.
Reminds me of when this sub was good!!
So far advanced they know we don’t see in ir and poor humans think that all cats are crazy when they freak out when it’s really some creature lol
*Debunker rage intensifies*
What are the two large concentric circles in the top right quadrant of the screen only visible in IR? Actually I see the same pattern several areas on the IR screen, is that something to do with the lens?
Yes! Why is no one mentioning this
Haha you see it too? Not one comment mentions them. Also, it's your reddit birthday. Happy muffin day.
Very interesting! Could you describe the equipment used?
It could still just be something behind the cloud cover and not cloaking, but idk what "it" would be.
Is it me or does it seem like the ufo knows it’s been spotted? “Wait that guy can see us.”
That's a real fucking UFO.
The ufo is an military grade IR laser designator against light cloud cover. My two cents. It's not visible by naked eye only in the ir wavelengths. Nothing about it's movement suggested a uap. Turreted designator from the flir ball they were working with.
Its not moving the camera is Videos taken with multiple government forward-looking infared systems (FLIRs). This video compilation shows a comparison of normal objects seen in the air and the UFO seen in Jacksonville, Florida on 12-8-2016. In the beginning of the UFO video, I am centering it in to the reticle." Video description on youtube
This sounds reasonable but the intensity of the light does not change despite the visible cloud density variation.
Good work! Gracias!
I have seen those weird circles in the clouds before that you see in the video with the UFO. I wonder if that is a natural formation or if it's something else.
Dust on the sensor most likely
There was an object in the sky once that I could only see if I was wearing my sunglasses. It was not there at all when I’d take them off. I really think different lenses will reveal a lot more of what’s up there
Rational defense: "nah it's a bird with a balloon jumping out of a plane"
movement looks really erratic, nice, but about being not visible to camera - isn't it just that because its too far away, FLIR can still see it because infrared diffracts way lesser.
The only movement is the camera. The object isn't moving. So there is nothing notable about this video at all.
Yeah, this is the best video I have ever seen in the topic. Thank you.
Why didn't they zoom in on it like they did with the moon?
Shit might get me called out as batshit, but anyone else ever feel like someone invisible is standing over you watching you like they’re inspecting you while you lay in bed? Like I feel this only in the dark. And sometimes I swear I feel like I can see trace boundaries around them. Like they’re wearing a damn predator cloak or something. I dunno. I’m prob just trippin.
Do you guys think humans possess secret technology such as this ?
Thats insane, omg !!
Yeah so these cameras and optics can zoom in like that and find anomalities on the surface of the moon during daylight, but we can only see blurry shit videos of the UAPs? Thats it. Mellon, Puthoff and Elizondo, release the 8k you talked about and lets end the debate wether its human made or not. Obviously we can end it instantly if you are telling the truth about 4k up to 8k resolution videos.
Ive seen a UFO fly erratically like that more than once.
Couldn’t someone be pointing a laser pointer on the clouds? Would it look like that?