Based on the analysis from NASA, the “Go-Fast” object is prosaic in nature. Page 28.
A well-known UAP event is the “GoFast” video, recorded by navy aviators from the USS Theodore Roosevelt. A still frame from this video is shown in the Figure below, where the infrared camera has locked onto a small object in the center. The video gives an impression of an object skimming above the ocean at a great velocity. But analysis of the numerical information on the display reveals a less extraordinary interpretation.
The circled numbers in the image provide the information needed to estimate the object’s altitude and velocity. This information includes (1) elevation angle of the camera (negative = downward), (2) azimuth angle of the camera, (3) target range in nautical miles, (4) the aircraft’s altitude in feet, (5) time reference in seconds, and (6) indicated air speed in knots. Using items 1, 3, and 4, plus a bit of trigonometry, we calculate that the object is at an altitude of 13,000 feet, and 4.2 miles from the ocean behind it (see middle panel). Given that the aircraft’s groundspeed is about 435 mph, we may conclude that the impression of rapid motion is at least partly due to the high velocity of the sensor, coupled with the parallax effect.
We can use other information from the display to place some limits on the true velocity of the object. This analysis is summarized in the right-hand panel, which depicts an overhead view of the encounter during a 22-second interval. The jet was banking left at about 15° during this time, which corresponds to an approximate turning radius of 16 kilometers. We know the range and bearing of the object at the start (t=0s) and end (t=22s) times. Using the calculated true air speed (TAS) and a bit more trigonometry, we find the object moved about 390 meters during this 22-second interval, which corresponds to an average speed of 40 mph. This is a typical wind speed at 13,000 feet.
Our calculation has neglected wind effects on the aircraft, and thus there is uncertainty in this result. But the analysis reveals that the object need not be moving at an extraordinary velocity. Note also that the object appears bright against a dark ocean for these display settings. This indicates that the object is colder than the ocean. There is thus no evidence of heat produced by a propulsion system. This further supports the conjecture that the object is most likely drifting with the wind. The availability of additional data would enable a more firm conclusion about the nature of this object.
It’s rotating.
Couldn’t remember if that’s the same video or not. I’ve seen claims on twitter indicating the calculations NASA used are based on “assumptions”. NASA didn’t have all of the data.
Imb4 “that sounds like math, I’m ignoring that and have decided it’s a coverup”
I think you’d be surprised to find out that most people would accept the results. What most people want, or at least what I want, is this kind of analysis. Removing junk data is always a good thing as you can shift your focus on the truly anomalous cases.
There are plenty of cases on https://www.aaro.mil/, but unfortunately, the sensor data is classified and not available to the public. We are stuck with blurry videos and testimony.
Hopefully Galileo Project sensor data will be of a better quality with nearby systems corroborating observations.
That’s my hope as well.
I think the important thing to keep in mind is that studies won’t always determine what an object was. They’ll likely stop research once they get enough data to support the idea of a prosaic source. That will leave a lot of sightings in a grey area where it’s easier and safer to assume prosaic. Some will grasp that as hope it could still be non-human. While others will accept it as proof it’s prosaic and move on. Just know that it’s okay to accept something as both unresolved, but potentially prosaic. There are a lot of sightings out there and it can be easy getting hung up on one event. Regardless, keep asking questions and pushing for answers on the subject as a whole.
It’s also important to note that NASA has the same data as the public. I don’t believe they have access to the classified sensor data, which paint the full picture.
I don’t know, that seems a bit prosaic
I’m speaking broadly of cases. And, I feel like you may be misreading my statement where I support the idea of accepting things as prosaic, but understanding the limit of the research. Is there a specific incident you’d like to expand your statement upon?
Man I was expecting a much more extensive report. Not an analysis of what 5 or 6 different sightings?
I believe they didn’t really have much time to work with from setting up the team and delivering the report. I want to say less than 90 days, but don’t quote me on that. The other thing to note is I don’t believe they have access to the classified sensor data either. They are just trying to do some math based on some blurry video evidence and give the best explanation they can, which is different from AARO.
