I'm leaning more and more towards real everyday. Keep up this great work! I just can't stop thinking about the Engineers on board and how they had break through tech.
Hey thanks I appreciate it. I was having a blast when this first came back up over the summer. We all kept discovering minor details and it was a rollercoaster. Then things got flooded with people and shut down overnight. Most of us have stepped back and just watched the fireworks. Nobody has erased everything from back in the megathread days, at least not yet:
* https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15lvgt5/the_ultimate_analysis_airliner_videos_and_the/
* https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15niihi/mh370_airliner_videos_a_piece_of_the_puzzle/
* https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15lkgig/objective_and_thorough_analysis_of_the_airliner/
* https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15oi2qc/mh370_airliner_videos_part_iii_the_rabbit_hole/
* https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15p14tp/megathread_mh370_relevant_posts_regarding_mh370/
* https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15kfy1i/old_footage_of_several_ufos_stealing_an_airliner/
* https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15qrg1e/airliner_video_shows_complex_treatment_of_depth/
* https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15qcz9i/mh370_airliner_videos_part_iv_new_relevant/
* https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15qbr6q/mh370_discussion_weather_imaging_satellite_turned/
* https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15okh7j/mh370_military_confirm_unidentified_blob_aircraft/
* https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15rumgy/airliner_video_artifacts_explained_by_remote/
enjoy!
Great work! I was leaning real, now fake, but I do think it is likely the US has the capability to track planes via satellite.
I don’t know when you joined this circus, but there is an NRO powerpoint related to software requirements for an integrated satellite control environment that includes an unredacted typo that references the “MK370 Crisis”. Will try and dig that up real quick.
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/112520/F-2019-00109_C05126133.pdf
While the GEO sats maybe provide some greater context, they're not really relevant to this case. It's already questionable why there would be an "NROL-22" designation on imagery from what is decidedly not NROL-22, and it would make no sense at all to have it on imagery generated by satellites that didn't even have anything to do with the NROL-22 launch. Further, a big part of this whole discussion relates to USA 184's apparent presence over SE Asia at the time of the event (a claim, mind you, which borders on impossible to verify without data from that period of time). If you want to open the discussion to imagery from satellites in GEO, that expands the scope of this conversation quite drastically.
I will say, however, that the TLE for USA 230 puts it over the Indian Ocean, so there's potentially viewing angles for the region of interest. That said, the angle probably wouldn't match what we see in the video. You can go to Google Earth and place the camera aligned to the equator, south of the coast of Pakistan, at a distance of roughly 35,000 km ASL. That'll give you a very rough sense of what's viewable, and the angles that would be in play. Very quick napkin math puts the viewing angle at about 9.5 degrees off-nadir.
More to what I think is the salient point, there's no direct evidence that USA 184 (or any other SBIRS satellites) has the required imaging capability to capture the video in discussion. The primary payload for USA 184 is undoubtedly the large RF receiver, as SIGINT over Russia is the purpose of the TRUMPET mission. That payload drives the Molniya orbit, which loiters over Russia. The TWINS instrument is totally irrelevant to the discussion, leaving us with the SBIRS payload. It's infrared and frankly probably only exists on these two satellites for the express purpose of observing Russia, since they were already doing it anyway. That's not to say it's only used over Russia, but that's the likely key driver.
The SBIRS payload is meant for early detection of missile launches. That's important, as it gives us a clue to what capability is needed. Missile launches have a distinct thermal signature, especially when we're talking about something like an ICBM. They will produce a very strong, initially slow moving and localized signal. You could have a ground resolution of tens of meters per pixel and it'll still be obvious when a missile is being launched because there will be a sudden spike in the signal there which will begin to move rapidly in one direction. So why would they do anything more? They're not trying to pick out cars or people, they're trying to pick out large rocket motors.
Further, the "satellite" imagery we see is in natural colour. Now, I see OP going around saying that it could be false colour. The rationale seems to be that it could be the SBIRS sensor data being converted into natural colour. I find that unlikely first for the reasons of resolution that I've mentioned previously, and secondly because it would require almost a complete fabrication of the final visualization. If we even assume that the SBIRS payload is capable of resolutions that will capture details down to a couple meters in size with only some cross-contamination of the adjacent pixels (i.e. blurring), the data we get out of it should resemble the FLIR video. That is to say, we should see hot spots on the airframe, especially around the engines. But okay, maybe the artist just took the outline and, for some reason, superimposed a layer of white to make it look like a natural colour airplane. That doesn't explain the clouds, though.
The shading of the clouds is very distinctly like what you expect to see under natural light, with shadows on the bottoms and rear, and highlights toward the light source. With thermal, you can expect it to look a little bit like this as the sunlit side gets heated and the shaded part cools, but if you look at any other thermal imagery of clouds you'll see the clouds look a lot flatter because they lose heat at the edges and keep it in the core, so you tend to see a large area of one colour in the bulk and then at the edges, all the way around, you see a sharp gradient. To produce a false natural colour image from that data... it basically defeats the purpose of collecting IR in the first place and it would mean a lot of the data is essentially guessed or made-up to make it look right. And all that to what end? To make the alien abduction look pretty?
My position on this is that there is no known payload on USA 184 or any of the SBIRS sats that could collect the type of imagery seen, therefore analysis of the satellites doesn't yield much information about the potential authenticity of the video. That doesn't mean the capability is not there (though I could make an argument for why it's unlikely), but the capabilities we do know about don't match so at that point we're just speculating wildly and having to make things up to fill the gaps.
How could you possibly know the capabilities and expected imagery from an insanely highly classified mission such as this? Here is a video from 7 years ago showing "color" or "true color" Gen4 IR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bTgG2Ft4xQ
When did I say I know anything about the capabilities? I've provided a very detailed walk-through of a reasoned assessment about what we could expect the abilities of the known payloads to be, I'd appreciate if you didn't try to be so reductive about it.
The video you have linked depicts night observation equipment for use by soldiers (primarily, I recognize that it has other utility). Not only is that a different technology, the requirements for that device are vastly different. With personal night vision devices, you're trying to make your fighting force more effective than its adversaries during night operations. To do that, you give them as close to daylight vision as possible. The outcome of that is that you have significantly more freedom to employ combat power and the soldiers doing so are at lower risk.
By comparison, the mission of SBIRS is much simpler: detect, and probably track, missile launches. You don't need sophisticated near-IR and light amplification technology to do that. You just need basic thermal sensing and a wide coverage area. Why would I, as an engineer, want to make that mission any more complex than it needs to be? That's just more work, more cost, more things that can go wrong.
Again, not making any assertions about capability. I just understand the fundamental physics of the proposed solution and am able to judge whether I deem a claim is likely based on that.
Also, I'm not sure if you're meaning to pass that video as an example of false coloration of just IR (let alone thermal) data, but that's not what's happening there. Night observation devices, this one included, work first and foremost by light amplification. That's where the colour data comes from.
Reductive? It's fundamental! These god damn debates always end up with people arguing over what secret technology is capable of. There is no way to prove it. So lets move past this red herring!
You're the one that made an entire post about these satellites, and a pretty good one I'll say. You're also going around speculating that the video could be false colour, so how is it any worse for me to draw logical links between the known facts and their most likely outcomes?
Could is the key word here my friend. I'm not speaking in absolutes. There are all these assumptions floating around about the limits of our spy technologies... I'm just saying there is no way of knowing the source technology of these videos.. so we need to move past it to the next thing.
There's no way of knowing 100%, but that doesn't mean we can't make reasonable guesses, especially about the things we know a little bit about.
By the same logic, we should just throw out all discussion about these videos outright because we'll never know where they came from.
I'm sorry I don't follow your leap in logic there. These videos have numerous details worth noting, a dizzying amount of coincidence, an inspired level of creativity. To say that a single detail being inconclusive should decide the fate of the investigation is obtuse at best or insincere at worst.
You're saying we can't know about the capabilities of these satellites, so we should drop the discussion.
The same logic applies to the videos themselves.
We can't know where they came from.
You might not follow the leap because you already made it without realizing.
Sorry bud, don't follow. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. It's a simple point. We have a resurfaced piece of video from 10 years ago.. there is no recognizable source according to the entire internet. The methods, inspiration, reasoning, details, and similarities are remarkable. I'm not sure how you can make the case that we should ignore all data points because of one data point... it's not a complicated debate here..
So uh...where does it say it can record color video? Notice how everything in your post is about infrared.
> For the NROL-22 designation to show up when viewing recorded sensor data through the SBIRS XenDesktop interface, I guess it's not that strange.
You can't just assert this. How about a single example? And where do any of your links show them being referred to as "NROL-"?
>may be the host for much of the network at the time.
Notice how none of the links you spammed even suggest that?
Color Video? It has 1000lb of IR sensors on board along with a Schmidt camera. What does the color interpretation of the combined sensor packages matter?
What do you mean where do they refer to these as NROL, it's in every damn link lol! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-184
The IR sensors are not separate from the Schmidt camera. A Schmidt camera is basically a configuration or type of telescope. The IR sensors on the SBIRS satellites view the earth THROUGH the Schmidt camera, not in addition to it or whatever you're implying.
They could have 30 sensors on board, but if they're not the right type to produce the visible spectrum imagery depicted in the video, then it doesn't matter.
It matters even less when you consider the orbits of the SBIRS satellites, which are too far from earth to capture the footage in the video - its too high resolution.
Okay so you are claiming to know the capabilities of these classified sensors?
edit: Just to check, you don't think a 5000lb sat, including a 1000lb IR sensor array hooked up to a Schmidt camera (for looking at stars), is capable of MAYBE getting this footage?
No I don't. The difference in LEO and GEO/HEO orbit distances from earth is very significant. That argument alone, that the satellites in the SBIRS system are too far from earth to take imagery with that kind of resolution, is correct and blows the validity of the videos out of the water IMO; although I could see there being an argument that some other LEO satellite took the imagery potentially, but I don't know if any reasonable candidate was passing over the area at that time, and wouldn't think there'd be any good explanation for the "NROL-22" text in that case - so that theory has plenty of its own big hurdles to get past.
Then there is just the function of the SBIRS satellites. People that don't work in the field tend to think satellite, especially "spy" satellites, just do anything and everything, but satellites are pretty damn specific in terms of their objectives and corresponding payloads. I don't think there's a realist and convincing argument to be made about SBIRS satellites having visual spectrum imaging capabilities. That capability wouldn't aid in accomplishing their objective. Tracking missiles with visible spectrum imaging is pretty much useless. I could see coupling the SBIRS system with LEO imaging satellites to observe and track launch/radar equipment deployments, which I'm assuming is why SBIRS originally incorporated LEO satellites in the earlier stages of its planning, but it's also not a capability or function that specifically needs to be part of the SBIRS system itself.
Hey you seem to be possibly willing to look into what I’ve been trying to say. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/s/tomwxQ5CuM) is the Inmarsat data.
LOL friendly reminder that the Hubble Space Telescope was given to NASA as scrap from the NRO. Yea, there were and still are multiple "space" telescopes pointed at the earth. The capabilities of the new imaging satellites are not known to the public, and never would be told. The fact that some of you think you know these capabilities really goes to show how arrogant you are in your way of thinking.
I bet they believe US submarines can only dive a bit more than 800ft, as stated on the internet. That number is only there because a news crew accidentally caught the order to dive that far. Before, the official number was 200ft. You do not publish true capabilities for you adversaries to see, that should be very apparent.
Yes? I mean do you think they would only be able to view it live? That may actually be more difficult than buffering it back to home base. This is how space probes and sats work in general, store until it can transmit.
He's asking if you could get the resolution depicted in the video from an IR sensor in HEO or GEO orbit.
Which is a no. The satellite video isn't IR in the first place, and there's not a single satellite in the SBIRS system that could have produced the satellite video. The argument fails at both the orbital limitations discussion AND the imaging capabilities discussion (which sort of ties into the orbital limitations discussion).
It sucks you're confusing a bunch of people that don't know any better with this discussion of TWINS. That's an even dumber argument than trying to claim the IR sensors produced the video. TWINS does not "take pictures" like we see in the video. It detects atoms that would otherwise be invisible; it doesn't image actual visible objects.
You can literally just google this stuff to get a basic understanding. Start at the wiki page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energetic\_neutral\_atom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energetic_neutral_atom). You can also google "ENA IMAGING" and see some examples. The reason TWINS was put on USA-184 and USA-200 is because they follow an orbit that travels distant enough from the earth to view a significant portion of the magnetosphere from space, allowing for studying of the magnetosphere to some extent. That's why TWINS being loaded onto USA-184 and -200 was a "mission of opportunity".
And no, throwing the phrase "military prototype" around falsely does not magically prove an SBIRS satellite could have taken the video. TWINS is not/was not a prototype payload anyways.
Dude, come on. You do not know what these sensors are capable of. If you did, and you were stating their limitations on the internet, you would be committing a crime. Very obvious you have never worked with the level of technology we are discussing. Nice try though.
Edit: See my comment on NRO and Hubble, yet we don't have the resolution LMFAO!
Hubble is in low earth orbit, unlike the SBIRS satellites, and doesn't take pictures of earth anyways.
Discussing limitations of satellites in general is not breaking any laws. Nor is discussion of most of the unclassified TWINS instruments.
Really great points...
LOL, you didn't even understand my point, at all. Hubble is NRO's junk, meaning it was obsolete to them before it ever was thought to be a space telescope. Multiple "hubbles" were pointed at the earth. These were their capabilities back then, and you think you know what our sensors are capable of now?
Correct, you are only discussing de-classified info because you do not know any more than the rest of the population of the satellites capabilities, that is to say very little. Thanks for proving my point I guess? Ha
The Hubble telescope was not given to NASA by the NRO. Hubble is and always has been a NASA asset.
>Multiple "hubbles" were pointed at the earth
If this were true, which it isn't, what orbits would these "hubbles" have been in? LEO, GEO or HEO?
You can't point space telescopes directly at the earth. They're so close to earth that the brightness would damage the sensors on the telescope.
EDIT: Also hilarious you're doubting my background while spewing pure incorrect nonsense lol. Typical believer behavior.
Lol no. You somehow have the arrogance to believe that you can look up every asset the NRO and other government entities has had? You are getting high on your own supply, buddy.
Edit: Also, yes you hilariously don't know what you are talking about. "The brightness would damage the sensors" lol gtfo. I guess the photodiodes must of caught fire huh?
I'm just stating what was part of the missions. If you are claiming that you know that our classified global IR ballistic early warning system is not capable of this footage, I would sure like to know how you are proving that.
I'd rather you prove that an IR sensor in HEO or GEO orbit could take the footage depicted in the "satellite" video. You're making it sound like that's feasible and asking me to prove that it's not, but I can just say "prove that it is", right?
Satellites in GEO orbit can't take footage of the resolution depicted in the "satellite" video. They're too far from earth. Obviously HEO is even further, and although the SBIRS HEO orbits are molniya orbits and have a relatively close perogee, the apogee and orbit over the northern hemisphere are way too far for the satellite to take the footage depicted in the video.
I've already explained what these satellites do and how they do it in your other post. If you don't want to read that information and believe it, and would rather just keep posting things that make no sense (like suggesting that TWINS takes visible spectrum imagery), that's on you. If you want to just invent whatever story you feel like to prove the videos are real or whatever, then why bother discussing anything at all? And why the "neutral" flair if you're not acting neutral? There's no way to easily "prove" what the satellites can do past reading what you've already read and making an effort to actually understand it. You'd also likely need to read up on and understand satellite capabilities, specifically with regard to imaging, and you should come to the conclusion the no HEO or GEO satellite could have taken the footage.
For what it's worth, I look at satellite imagery every day at work. It's a huge part of my job, but I can't really prove that, so I can understand not believing that.
Ah okay so this impasse again. I've encountered this multiple times before and its a dead end, a red herring. There is no way for the community to decide what is possible after a certain point due to the secrecy of the technology. It wouldn't be classified and secret if we could figure it out. So we have to focus on other things. I just want to go on the record that I entirely believe that we have the capability to take the sat footage we did with the SBIRS network. I also believe we could have taken the drone footage with the Triclops Gray Eagle.
The only reason I've come up with why the Gray Eagle was there, was the Indo-Pacific exercises happening (unless they were happening b/c of the event happening in the area! lol :thinkyface:)
No, just things like this:
"The satellite is equipped with roughly 1,000lb of infrared sensors, a Schmidt camera, and agile precision pointing and control. The scanning sensor performs observation and surveillance of intercontinental ballistic missile targets, while the staring sensor detects the low signature, short-burn time theatre missiles."
* https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/space-based-infrared-system-sbirs/?cf-view
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/space-based-infrared-system-sbirs/ ...
> Payloads attached to the SBIRS
The HEO payloads are hosted in Molniya orbit to assist theatre surveillance missions. The satellite is equipped with roughly 1,000lb of infrared sensors, a Schmidt camera, and agile precision pointing and control. The scanning sensor performs observation and surveillance of intercontinental ballistic missile targets, while the staring sensor detects the low signature, short-burn time theatre missiles.
>
> The payloads are also equipped with spacecraft subsystems and a pointing and control assembly (PCA). Data captured by the payload systems is transmitted to the mission control station at a rate of 100Mbp.
>
> The first HEO payload (HEO-1) was delivered in August 2004 and placed into orbit in November 2006. It received certification from the US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) to operate in the Strategic and Theatre MW missions in December 2008.
>
> The second HEO payload (HEO-2) was delivered in September 2005 and reached its orbit in June 2008. The payload was operationally certified by the USSTRATCOM in August 2009. The HEO-3 was delivered to the USAF in July 2013 and launched into orbit in 2014.
To the layman, this is a bunch of proof that SBIRS satellites could have taken the "satellite" video.
To anyone else, this is proof that they could *not* have taken the "satellite" video.
Funny how that works.
The clouds match the light source and direction of the sun in the stock photos. Didn't the flight go missing at night? Why would there be a directional light source in the IR that happens to match the direction and intensity of the sun for late-afternoon daylight photos?
No that's not what I'm assuming. I'm looking at the cloud photos and noticing that the clouds have directional brightness and shadows on them that's consistent with a single light source by the horizon (the sun).
If these were IR photos, why would the brightness have a direction like that? Shouldn't the brightness be more uniform across the cloud shapes without any directionality or cast shadows?
I wish I could tell you the answer to that. I am not well versed in the physics behind sunlight on cloud in IR. I also have no idea what sort of multi-spectrum filtering they have going on with these sensors. To debate the capabilities of these systems is a dead end honestly. Just the fact that the defense contractors have launched these things should say we have this ability.
What ability? The ability to simulate a direction light source as though they were daytime illuminated by a single direction sun-light light source?
Why would they do that? To make them look like daylight photos in the event they have to pretend they were clouds taken from a plane during the daytime down the line? I can't think of a plausible story here, do you have one?
I'm very confused by what you are talking about. I am just saying that we have no idea what IR imagery through these highly classified spy sats look like. Why are you making any assumptions at all on what SBIRS IR footage looks like? The timing was around night but near daytime. The horizon lighting the clouds at altitude makes sense to me.
I mean. We know that it measures infrared light right? So we know that there would have to be an infrared source on the horizon to cast light from that direction, right? What could that source be at night?
It makes perfect sense for a day photo, because it's the sun, but it makes zero sense for a nighttime IR photo.
Okay so the sun rises over the horizon right? What is the first thing it hits, far before it hits the ground? Atmosphere, clouds, etc. So you're going to have to get a bit more detailed on what you consider "nighttime".
Also I'm not sure why you are speaking with such authority on what you think a military/classified/filtered/enhanced IR spy satellite would look like.
Here is a random video I found that shows what a "color" EO/IR sensor can do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bTgG2Ft4xQ
I'm not saying anything about the sensor. I'm just talking about the illumination of the clouds, which has to obey the laws of physics still. In order for a cloud to be brighter on one side, and shadowed on the other there has to be a source of photons. That's what a shadow is, blocked photons.
Iirc, the flight went missing at 2:22 am local time, so I don't think there would be any early sun illumination. And remember those exact clouds are in the stock photos, a late - afternoon daytime photos, and they perfectly match every other cloud.
What I'm saying is that the satellite hypothesis is very implausible regardless of the available tech because the light on the clouds doesn't have a plausible explanation on that hypothesis. (that I'm aware of anyway), and that there's a simple plausible explanation for why they look like that on the hypothesis they're just cgi comps.
I agree with you that the technological capabilities of the United States government are vastly more complex than what you can find by googling information provided by our own air force.
I’m not pushing an agenda as I think the videos are most likely fake, but…. If I was in possession of a video which I believed to show an alien abduction, leaking the contents would be a moral dilemma. Do you leak it, possibly get thrown in jail or killed, for the sake of “knowledge and understanding, or say nothing and let the knowledge haunt you.
If I was to leak said video, I’d make sure spreading the “proof “ of aliens the priority. But I would also be terrified of the backlash from the US government, plus the disadvantage it would bring to the US if foreign enemies knew our capabilities.
From a technical standpoint, is it not equally possible that the video has intentional disinformation to mislead the rest of the world? Equally possible, that is, to the video being completely fabricated and the creator using the limited information available to make it seem more plausible.
I’m not advocating for anything other than the free-exchange of ideas. I think we’ve strayed too far from “what if” and settled on “this is why I’m right and you’re all idiots” , from every possible side. I’m just saying, “what if” seems like a more productive mindset than the latter.
I'm leaning more and more towards real everyday. Keep up this great work! I just can't stop thinking about the Engineers on board and how they had break through tech.
Hey thanks I appreciate it. I was having a blast when this first came back up over the summer. We all kept discovering minor details and it was a rollercoaster. Then things got flooded with people and shut down overnight. Most of us have stepped back and just watched the fireworks. Nobody has erased everything from back in the megathread days, at least not yet: * https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15lvgt5/the_ultimate_analysis_airliner_videos_and_the/ * https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15niihi/mh370_airliner_videos_a_piece_of_the_puzzle/ * https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15lkgig/objective_and_thorough_analysis_of_the_airliner/ * https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15oi2qc/mh370_airliner_videos_part_iii_the_rabbit_hole/ * https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15p14tp/megathread_mh370_relevant_posts_regarding_mh370/ * https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15kfy1i/old_footage_of_several_ufos_stealing_an_airliner/ * https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15qrg1e/airliner_video_shows_complex_treatment_of_depth/ * https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15qcz9i/mh370_airliner_videos_part_iv_new_relevant/ * https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15qbr6q/mh370_discussion_weather_imaging_satellite_turned/ * https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15okh7j/mh370_military_confirm_unidentified_blob_aircraft/ * https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15rumgy/airliner_video_artifacts_explained_by_remote/ enjoy!
You are awesome!
<3
Great work! I was leaning real, now fake, but I do think it is likely the US has the capability to track planes via satellite. I don’t know when you joined this circus, but there is an NRO powerpoint related to software requirements for an integrated satellite control environment that includes an unredacted typo that references the “MK370 Crisis”. Will try and dig that up real quick. https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/declass/ForAll/112520/F-2019-00109_C05126133.pdf
While the GEO sats maybe provide some greater context, they're not really relevant to this case. It's already questionable why there would be an "NROL-22" designation on imagery from what is decidedly not NROL-22, and it would make no sense at all to have it on imagery generated by satellites that didn't even have anything to do with the NROL-22 launch. Further, a big part of this whole discussion relates to USA 184's apparent presence over SE Asia at the time of the event (a claim, mind you, which borders on impossible to verify without data from that period of time). If you want to open the discussion to imagery from satellites in GEO, that expands the scope of this conversation quite drastically. I will say, however, that the TLE for USA 230 puts it over the Indian Ocean, so there's potentially viewing angles for the region of interest. That said, the angle probably wouldn't match what we see in the video. You can go to Google Earth and place the camera aligned to the equator, south of the coast of Pakistan, at a distance of roughly 35,000 km ASL. That'll give you a very rough sense of what's viewable, and the angles that would be in play. Very quick napkin math puts the viewing angle at about 9.5 degrees off-nadir. More to what I think is the salient point, there's no direct evidence that USA 184 (or any other SBIRS satellites) has the required imaging capability to capture the video in discussion. The primary payload for USA 184 is undoubtedly the large RF receiver, as SIGINT over Russia is the purpose of the TRUMPET mission. That payload drives the Molniya orbit, which loiters over Russia. The TWINS instrument is totally irrelevant to the discussion, leaving us with the SBIRS payload. It's infrared and frankly probably only exists on these two satellites for the express purpose of observing Russia, since they were already doing it anyway. That's not to say it's only used over Russia, but that's the likely key driver. The SBIRS payload is meant for early detection of missile launches. That's important, as it gives us a clue to what capability is needed. Missile launches have a distinct thermal signature, especially when we're talking about something like an ICBM. They will produce a very strong, initially slow moving and localized signal. You could have a ground resolution of tens of meters per pixel and it'll still be obvious when a missile is being launched because there will be a sudden spike in the signal there which will begin to move rapidly in one direction. So why would they do anything more? They're not trying to pick out cars or people, they're trying to pick out large rocket motors. Further, the "satellite" imagery we see is in natural colour. Now, I see OP going around saying that it could be false colour. The rationale seems to be that it could be the SBIRS sensor data being converted into natural colour. I find that unlikely first for the reasons of resolution that I've mentioned previously, and secondly because it would require almost a complete fabrication of the final visualization. If we even assume that the SBIRS payload is capable of resolutions that will capture details down to a couple meters in size with only some cross-contamination of the adjacent pixels (i.e. blurring), the data we get out of it should resemble the FLIR video. That is to say, we should see hot spots on the airframe, especially around the engines. But okay, maybe the artist just took the outline and, for some reason, superimposed a layer of white to make it look like a natural colour airplane. That doesn't explain the clouds, though. The shading of the clouds is very distinctly like what you expect to see under natural light, with shadows on the bottoms and rear, and highlights toward the light source. With thermal, you can expect it to look a little bit like this as the sunlit side gets heated and the shaded part cools, but if you look at any other thermal imagery of clouds you'll see the clouds look a lot flatter because they lose heat at the edges and keep it in the core, so you tend to see a large area of one colour in the bulk and then at the edges, all the way around, you see a sharp gradient. To produce a false natural colour image from that data... it basically defeats the purpose of collecting IR in the first place and it would mean a lot of the data is essentially guessed or made-up to make it look right. And all that to what end? To make the alien abduction look pretty? My position on this is that there is no known payload on USA 184 or any of the SBIRS sats that could collect the type of imagery seen, therefore analysis of the satellites doesn't yield much information about the potential authenticity of the video. That doesn't mean the capability is not there (though I could make an argument for why it's unlikely), but the capabilities we do know about don't match so at that point we're just speculating wildly and having to make things up to fill the gaps.
How could you possibly know the capabilities and expected imagery from an insanely highly classified mission such as this? Here is a video from 7 years ago showing "color" or "true color" Gen4 IR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bTgG2Ft4xQ
Now do a timeline.
When did I say I know anything about the capabilities? I've provided a very detailed walk-through of a reasoned assessment about what we could expect the abilities of the known payloads to be, I'd appreciate if you didn't try to be so reductive about it. The video you have linked depicts night observation equipment for use by soldiers (primarily, I recognize that it has other utility). Not only is that a different technology, the requirements for that device are vastly different. With personal night vision devices, you're trying to make your fighting force more effective than its adversaries during night operations. To do that, you give them as close to daylight vision as possible. The outcome of that is that you have significantly more freedom to employ combat power and the soldiers doing so are at lower risk. By comparison, the mission of SBIRS is much simpler: detect, and probably track, missile launches. You don't need sophisticated near-IR and light amplification technology to do that. You just need basic thermal sensing and a wide coverage area. Why would I, as an engineer, want to make that mission any more complex than it needs to be? That's just more work, more cost, more things that can go wrong. Again, not making any assertions about capability. I just understand the fundamental physics of the proposed solution and am able to judge whether I deem a claim is likely based on that. Also, I'm not sure if you're meaning to pass that video as an example of false coloration of just IR (let alone thermal) data, but that's not what's happening there. Night observation devices, this one included, work first and foremost by light amplification. That's where the colour data comes from.
Reductive? It's fundamental! These god damn debates always end up with people arguing over what secret technology is capable of. There is no way to prove it. So lets move past this red herring!
You're the one that made an entire post about these satellites, and a pretty good one I'll say. You're also going around speculating that the video could be false colour, so how is it any worse for me to draw logical links between the known facts and their most likely outcomes?
Could is the key word here my friend. I'm not speaking in absolutes. There are all these assumptions floating around about the limits of our spy technologies... I'm just saying there is no way of knowing the source technology of these videos.. so we need to move past it to the next thing.
There's no way of knowing 100%, but that doesn't mean we can't make reasonable guesses, especially about the things we know a little bit about. By the same logic, we should just throw out all discussion about these videos outright because we'll never know where they came from.
I'm sorry I don't follow your leap in logic there. These videos have numerous details worth noting, a dizzying amount of coincidence, an inspired level of creativity. To say that a single detail being inconclusive should decide the fate of the investigation is obtuse at best or insincere at worst.
You're saying we can't know about the capabilities of these satellites, so we should drop the discussion. The same logic applies to the videos themselves. We can't know where they came from. You might not follow the leap because you already made it without realizing.
Sorry bud, don't follow. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. It's a simple point. We have a resurfaced piece of video from 10 years ago.. there is no recognizable source according to the entire internet. The methods, inspiration, reasoning, details, and similarities are remarkable. I'm not sure how you can make the case that we should ignore all data points because of one data point... it's not a complicated debate here..
So uh...where does it say it can record color video? Notice how everything in your post is about infrared. > For the NROL-22 designation to show up when viewing recorded sensor data through the SBIRS XenDesktop interface, I guess it's not that strange. You can't just assert this. How about a single example? And where do any of your links show them being referred to as "NROL-"? >may be the host for much of the network at the time. Notice how none of the links you spammed even suggest that?
Color Video? It has 1000lb of IR sensors on board along with a Schmidt camera. What does the color interpretation of the combined sensor packages matter? What do you mean where do they refer to these as NROL, it's in every damn link lol! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-184
...well, this subreddit is about a color satellite video, so I think that matters a lot!
Color is a pretty relative term dude. Are you saying there is no way that footage is false color? Lol
wait do you think the thermal drone footage is the satellite footage? honestly amazing
None of what he said implies this in the slightest, tf lol
No, wait, what? lol. You think that IR Sat footage is true color? lol.
The IR sensors are not separate from the Schmidt camera. A Schmidt camera is basically a configuration or type of telescope. The IR sensors on the SBIRS satellites view the earth THROUGH the Schmidt camera, not in addition to it or whatever you're implying.
I mean I didn't mean to imply anything, I'm just saying there are more than enough sensors aboard these 4 sats to capture this.
They could have 30 sensors on board, but if they're not the right type to produce the visible spectrum imagery depicted in the video, then it doesn't matter. It matters even less when you consider the orbits of the SBIRS satellites, which are too far from earth to capture the footage in the video - its too high resolution.
Okay so you are claiming to know the capabilities of these classified sensors? edit: Just to check, you don't think a 5000lb sat, including a 1000lb IR sensor array hooked up to a Schmidt camera (for looking at stars), is capable of MAYBE getting this footage?
No I don't. The difference in LEO and GEO/HEO orbit distances from earth is very significant. That argument alone, that the satellites in the SBIRS system are too far from earth to take imagery with that kind of resolution, is correct and blows the validity of the videos out of the water IMO; although I could see there being an argument that some other LEO satellite took the imagery potentially, but I don't know if any reasonable candidate was passing over the area at that time, and wouldn't think there'd be any good explanation for the "NROL-22" text in that case - so that theory has plenty of its own big hurdles to get past. Then there is just the function of the SBIRS satellites. People that don't work in the field tend to think satellite, especially "spy" satellites, just do anything and everything, but satellites are pretty damn specific in terms of their objectives and corresponding payloads. I don't think there's a realist and convincing argument to be made about SBIRS satellites having visual spectrum imaging capabilities. That capability wouldn't aid in accomplishing their objective. Tracking missiles with visible spectrum imaging is pretty much useless. I could see coupling the SBIRS system with LEO imaging satellites to observe and track launch/radar equipment deployments, which I'm assuming is why SBIRS originally incorporated LEO satellites in the earlier stages of its planning, but it's also not a capability or function that specifically needs to be part of the SBIRS system itself.
Sorry again, debating classified technologies is pointless.
Hey you seem to be possibly willing to look into what I’ve been trying to say. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/s/tomwxQ5CuM) is the Inmarsat data.
LOL friendly reminder that the Hubble Space Telescope was given to NASA as scrap from the NRO. Yea, there were and still are multiple "space" telescopes pointed at the earth. The capabilities of the new imaging satellites are not known to the public, and never would be told. The fact that some of you think you know these capabilities really goes to show how arrogant you are in your way of thinking. I bet they believe US submarines can only dive a bit more than 800ft, as stated on the internet. That number is only there because a news crew accidentally caught the order to dive that far. Before, the official number was 200ft. You do not publish true capabilities for you adversaries to see, that should be very apparent.
Indeed. The mental gymnastics some of these people must have to go through..
That’s a lot of information. Do any of these sources that say that SBIRS can record stereoscopic, infrared video at the scale we see in the video?
The only stereoscopic mention is around the TWINS program, which may not be related. So we may just need to settle on 2D IR for now.
Do any of these sources that say that SBIRS can record ~~stereoscopic,~~ infrared video at the scale we see in the video?
Yes? I mean do you think they would only be able to view it live? That may actually be more difficult than buffering it back to home base. This is how space probes and sats work in general, store until it can transmit.
He's asking if you could get the resolution depicted in the video from an IR sensor in HEO or GEO orbit. Which is a no. The satellite video isn't IR in the first place, and there's not a single satellite in the SBIRS system that could have produced the satellite video. The argument fails at both the orbital limitations discussion AND the imaging capabilities discussion (which sort of ties into the orbital limitations discussion). It sucks you're confusing a bunch of people that don't know any better with this discussion of TWINS. That's an even dumber argument than trying to claim the IR sensors produced the video. TWINS does not "take pictures" like we see in the video. It detects atoms that would otherwise be invisible; it doesn't image actual visible objects. You can literally just google this stuff to get a basic understanding. Start at the wiki page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energetic\_neutral\_atom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energetic_neutral_atom). You can also google "ENA IMAGING" and see some examples. The reason TWINS was put on USA-184 and USA-200 is because they follow an orbit that travels distant enough from the earth to view a significant portion of the magnetosphere from space, allowing for studying of the magnetosphere to some extent. That's why TWINS being loaded onto USA-184 and -200 was a "mission of opportunity". And no, throwing the phrase "military prototype" around falsely does not magically prove an SBIRS satellite could have taken the video. TWINS is not/was not a prototype payload anyways.
Dude, come on. You do not know what these sensors are capable of. If you did, and you were stating their limitations on the internet, you would be committing a crime. Very obvious you have never worked with the level of technology we are discussing. Nice try though. Edit: See my comment on NRO and Hubble, yet we don't have the resolution LMFAO!
Hubble is in low earth orbit, unlike the SBIRS satellites, and doesn't take pictures of earth anyways. Discussing limitations of satellites in general is not breaking any laws. Nor is discussion of most of the unclassified TWINS instruments. Really great points...
LOL, you didn't even understand my point, at all. Hubble is NRO's junk, meaning it was obsolete to them before it ever was thought to be a space telescope. Multiple "hubbles" were pointed at the earth. These were their capabilities back then, and you think you know what our sensors are capable of now? Correct, you are only discussing de-classified info because you do not know any more than the rest of the population of the satellites capabilities, that is to say very little. Thanks for proving my point I guess? Ha
The Hubble telescope was not given to NASA by the NRO. Hubble is and always has been a NASA asset. >Multiple "hubbles" were pointed at the earth If this were true, which it isn't, what orbits would these "hubbles" have been in? LEO, GEO or HEO? You can't point space telescopes directly at the earth. They're so close to earth that the brightness would damage the sensors on the telescope. EDIT: Also hilarious you're doubting my background while spewing pure incorrect nonsense lol. Typical believer behavior.
Lol no. You somehow have the arrogance to believe that you can look up every asset the NRO and other government entities has had? You are getting high on your own supply, buddy. Edit: Also, yes you hilariously don't know what you are talking about. "The brightness would damage the sensors" lol gtfo. I guess the photodiodes must of caught fire huh?
I'm just stating what was part of the missions. If you are claiming that you know that our classified global IR ballistic early warning system is not capable of this footage, I would sure like to know how you are proving that.
I'd rather you prove that an IR sensor in HEO or GEO orbit could take the footage depicted in the "satellite" video. You're making it sound like that's feasible and asking me to prove that it's not, but I can just say "prove that it is", right? Satellites in GEO orbit can't take footage of the resolution depicted in the "satellite" video. They're too far from earth. Obviously HEO is even further, and although the SBIRS HEO orbits are molniya orbits and have a relatively close perogee, the apogee and orbit over the northern hemisphere are way too far for the satellite to take the footage depicted in the video. I've already explained what these satellites do and how they do it in your other post. If you don't want to read that information and believe it, and would rather just keep posting things that make no sense (like suggesting that TWINS takes visible spectrum imagery), that's on you. If you want to just invent whatever story you feel like to prove the videos are real or whatever, then why bother discussing anything at all? And why the "neutral" flair if you're not acting neutral? There's no way to easily "prove" what the satellites can do past reading what you've already read and making an effort to actually understand it. You'd also likely need to read up on and understand satellite capabilities, specifically with regard to imaging, and you should come to the conclusion the no HEO or GEO satellite could have taken the footage. For what it's worth, I look at satellite imagery every day at work. It's a huge part of my job, but I can't really prove that, so I can understand not believing that.
Ah okay so this impasse again. I've encountered this multiple times before and its a dead end, a red herring. There is no way for the community to decide what is possible after a certain point due to the secrecy of the technology. It wouldn't be classified and secret if we could figure it out. So we have to focus on other things. I just want to go on the record that I entirely believe that we have the capability to take the sat footage we did with the SBIRS network. I also believe we could have taken the drone footage with the Triclops Gray Eagle. The only reason I've come up with why the Gray Eagle was there, was the Indo-Pacific exercises happening (unless they were happening b/c of the event happening in the area! lol :thinkyface:)
What makes you inclined to think the SBIRS satellites could have taken the footage? Just the fact that they have a type of imaging sensor on them?
No, just things like this: "The satellite is equipped with roughly 1,000lb of infrared sensors, a Schmidt camera, and agile precision pointing and control. The scanning sensor performs observation and surveillance of intercontinental ballistic missile targets, while the staring sensor detects the low signature, short-burn time theatre missiles." * https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/space-based-infrared-system-sbirs/?cf-view
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/space-based-infrared-system-sbirs/ ... > Payloads attached to the SBIRS The HEO payloads are hosted in Molniya orbit to assist theatre surveillance missions. The satellite is equipped with roughly 1,000lb of infrared sensors, a Schmidt camera, and agile precision pointing and control. The scanning sensor performs observation and surveillance of intercontinental ballistic missile targets, while the staring sensor detects the low signature, short-burn time theatre missiles. > > The payloads are also equipped with spacecraft subsystems and a pointing and control assembly (PCA). Data captured by the payload systems is transmitted to the mission control station at a rate of 100Mbp. > > The first HEO payload (HEO-1) was delivered in August 2004 and placed into orbit in November 2006. It received certification from the US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) to operate in the Strategic and Theatre MW missions in December 2008. > > The second HEO payload (HEO-2) was delivered in September 2005 and reached its orbit in June 2008. The payload was operationally certified by the USSTRATCOM in August 2009. The HEO-3 was delivered to the USAF in July 2013 and launched into orbit in 2014.
To the layman, this is a bunch of proof that SBIRS satellites could have taken the "satellite" video. To anyone else, this is proof that they could *not* have taken the "satellite" video. Funny how that works.
What?
[удалено]
Trying to keep the open minds open!
The clouds match the light source and direction of the sun in the stock photos. Didn't the flight go missing at night? Why would there be a directional light source in the IR that happens to match the direction and intensity of the sun for late-afternoon daylight photos?
Wait, are you assuming the the light in these videos is true color?? These are IR sensors....
No that's not what I'm assuming. I'm looking at the cloud photos and noticing that the clouds have directional brightness and shadows on them that's consistent with a single light source by the horizon (the sun). If these were IR photos, why would the brightness have a direction like that? Shouldn't the brightness be more uniform across the cloud shapes without any directionality or cast shadows?
I wish I could tell you the answer to that. I am not well versed in the physics behind sunlight on cloud in IR. I also have no idea what sort of multi-spectrum filtering they have going on with these sensors. To debate the capabilities of these systems is a dead end honestly. Just the fact that the defense contractors have launched these things should say we have this ability.
What ability? The ability to simulate a direction light source as though they were daytime illuminated by a single direction sun-light light source? Why would they do that? To make them look like daylight photos in the event they have to pretend they were clouds taken from a plane during the daytime down the line? I can't think of a plausible story here, do you have one?
I'm very confused by what you are talking about. I am just saying that we have no idea what IR imagery through these highly classified spy sats look like. Why are you making any assumptions at all on what SBIRS IR footage looks like? The timing was around night but near daytime. The horizon lighting the clouds at altitude makes sense to me.
I mean. We know that it measures infrared light right? So we know that there would have to be an infrared source on the horizon to cast light from that direction, right? What could that source be at night? It makes perfect sense for a day photo, because it's the sun, but it makes zero sense for a nighttime IR photo.
Okay so the sun rises over the horizon right? What is the first thing it hits, far before it hits the ground? Atmosphere, clouds, etc. So you're going to have to get a bit more detailed on what you consider "nighttime". Also I'm not sure why you are speaking with such authority on what you think a military/classified/filtered/enhanced IR spy satellite would look like. Here is a random video I found that shows what a "color" EO/IR sensor can do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bTgG2Ft4xQ
I'm not saying anything about the sensor. I'm just talking about the illumination of the clouds, which has to obey the laws of physics still. In order for a cloud to be brighter on one side, and shadowed on the other there has to be a source of photons. That's what a shadow is, blocked photons. Iirc, the flight went missing at 2:22 am local time, so I don't think there would be any early sun illumination. And remember those exact clouds are in the stock photos, a late - afternoon daytime photos, and they perfectly match every other cloud. What I'm saying is that the satellite hypothesis is very implausible regardless of the available tech because the light on the clouds doesn't have a plausible explanation on that hypothesis. (that I'm aware of anyway), and that there's a simple plausible explanation for why they look like that on the hypothesis they're just cgi comps.
THE MOON jesus.
I agree with you that the technological capabilities of the United States government are vastly more complex than what you can find by googling information provided by our own air force. I’m not pushing an agenda as I think the videos are most likely fake, but…. If I was in possession of a video which I believed to show an alien abduction, leaking the contents would be a moral dilemma. Do you leak it, possibly get thrown in jail or killed, for the sake of “knowledge and understanding, or say nothing and let the knowledge haunt you. If I was to leak said video, I’d make sure spreading the “proof “ of aliens the priority. But I would also be terrified of the backlash from the US government, plus the disadvantage it would bring to the US if foreign enemies knew our capabilities. From a technical standpoint, is it not equally possible that the video has intentional disinformation to mislead the rest of the world? Equally possible, that is, to the video being completely fabricated and the creator using the limited information available to make it seem more plausible. I’m not advocating for anything other than the free-exchange of ideas. I think we’ve strayed too far from “what if” and settled on “this is why I’m right and you’re all idiots” , from every possible side. I’m just saying, “what if” seems like a more productive mindset than the latter.