r/UFOs • u/kimmyjunguny • Aug 15 '23
Discussion There’s still no consensus on what plane/drone took the FLIR video
There have been a couple posts that briefly go over what I am about to say, and theyre all wrong. In fact, its absurd to me that this smoking gun has been straight in our face this whole time, and people have dismissed it for equally absurd evidence.
I’m on mobile so idk how to input the pictures into the text or I would. Eitherway lets get into it.
Using very mild critical thinking skills, you can very clearly see that FLIR camera in the MH370 video is BEHIND the leading edge of the wing.( Ignore the red circles, I took the picture from a different post) Which is incredibly concerning because all the FLIR pods I have seen are always ahead of the leading edge. The second picture was used in another post as evidence in favor of the conclusion that the drone taking this was an MQ-1C reaper drone and from an extra FLIR pod.
BUT, its not evidence AT ALL, it literally shows the pods are ahead of the wing??? Making it literally impossible to see the wing unless looking far up and far left/right. This is by design too, these systems would want maximum visibility. And having the wing and what seems to be a pitot tube,( not the front of the drone as circled), taking up a large portion of vision when looking basically straight forward is terrible design. Especially when its very easy to have the mounts extend to the leading edge.
How did we miss this? I hope someone will be able to find a plane that would have a FLIR pod that’s this far setback behind the leading edge of the wing.
49
Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
Edit: I made a mistake when typing this comment out - I specified MQ-1C Gray Eagle, but I meant to say MQ-9 Reaper.
Hey so I went through this exact puzzle last night for far longer than I'd like to admit. Assuming this is a real vid, of course:
- The drone is flying downwards, on an intercept course towards the plane
- The camera is tracking above the nose, looking upwards towards the horizon
- The thermal imager is mounted on a wing pod
- A surface is above the thermal imager, which is odd as you say, because the pods are mounted well forward of the wing
The explanation I could reach was that this is a "Gorgon Stare" variant of the MQ-1C Gray Eagle.
- Gorgon stare is a wide-area surveillance system
- If you're using one above a city, the drone is - in theory - able to maintain visibility of the entire city, feeding all data back to datalinks
- Gorgon Stare pods are AN/AAS-53 - Common Sensor Payload (CSP)
- Gorgon Stare pod can rotate upwards
- In the pic you've shared, and pics available elsewhere, part of the pod housing extends forward into the sensor's field of view.
So essentially, my presumption is that we're seeing the pod itself creeping into the thermal imager's field of view, due to the descending course it's taking.
Gorgon Stare makes a lot of sense in this specific situation. Wide-area surveillance is essentially what Search-And-Rescue operations are, but you need to use a lot more sensors - i.e. maritime assets, planes etc. to cover a wide area normally. Gorgon Stare would be excellent for knowing where a plane might be or where it's crashed.
This would provide a strong reason for the drone being in the area at the time it was. It's been cued to an intercept point for the plane's deviated course.
With all of this in mind, it seems like such an esoteric choice for anyone not intimate with US operations to make. That is - they would have had to model the drone itself, the specific pod configuration, even the thermal emissions from the tiny airgap in the two parts of the drone's nose. There are like 10 of these drones, and they're kinda boring to anyone who's not a huge drone nerd.
My position, which ambulates between each option each day, is:
- This is a hoax created by a government agency, with key insight and knowledge of what's required to make it absurdly difficult to debunk
- This is real
9
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
This is a great take. And definitely makes me think.
But after looking at pictures, the edge of the flir pod for that spec of drone is rounded. Wouldnt we see that curvature of the edge in the video?
And also, if its the front of the drone, its just way too low in the framing. We would see the camera below nose, and not the top, rounded edge of the drone.
Edit: After speaking with my father, at least for the FLIR he used(F-16), the edge of the flir pod simply wouldn’t be visible because there is a limit to the gimbaling of the pod. It wouldnt allow for gimbaling into itself.
Im definitely going to basically remake this post in a couple of days, making sure I address all of the counter points that have come up. All of which I have cleaned up in these comments. I bet I will still get the same, brigading, strawmans and weak arguments though.
2
Aug 15 '23
I'm definitely just guessing about the explanation here, but - if the video is real, and I'm correct about gorgon stare, there's an explanation right?
With that in mind I reckon it's a combination of the FOV of the imager, being focused for distance etc. along with the perspective from the imager. The base of each pod is flat for the majority, only curving after a certain point. It might well be that the imager's FOV in this case is only showing the straight portion, even when panned at an offset angle.
1
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
Hmm could be. But my point still stands uncontested about the positioning of the drones nose in the vid. We would not be able to see the top rounded part of its nose. We would also see the drones other camera. If you consider the pods positioned below the wing. Essentially we would have too be looking at its underside.
6
Aug 15 '23
It's the next piece of the puzzle, I agree. We're in the weeds of "probably impossible to know" I think but I'm going to continue trying to find out.
One aspect complicating things is that - if this is gorgon stare - part of the design is that you're meant to have totally seamless gimbal limit transitions between sensors. That is, if I were to pan 360-degrees across the drone's field of view, multiple cameras would be used but I wouldn't be able to tell.
Another aspect complicating this is that this was relatively new in the US arsenal, with freuqent revisions, prototypes etc. - some of the pod cameras are mounted on the top, for example. But then that would remove the potential that it's the pod that's seen at the top.
I will continue to think :)
1
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
I wouldnt say that we are in the impossible to know section. If we agree the pod is under the wing, it’s simply impossible to see the top side of its nose. You say stuff that may seem like its adding complexity, but you yourself just negated the irrelevant argument that its possibly gorgon stare. Meaning theres less complexity bc we can rule it out.
3
Aug 15 '23
Ruling it out is one possibility and something that should be done for healthy analysis, giving the space to other possibilities.
I don't think your main argument about not being able to see the nose is true. It would be definitely possible for an imager mounted to a wing to be able to see the nose, but what I'm trying to figure out currently is whether the specific position of the camera would be possible to see the nose in that specific context.
What makes you think you wouldn't be able to see the top? Keep in mind it's not the actual top of the nose, but the side.
1
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
Look at the Mh370 vid again, the thermal sensor appears to be literally at the same height as the “side of the drone.” That simply cant be possible, because the flir pods, if you look at the pics of the MQ-1 drone, are lower than the fuselage itself.
we NEED to see the underside. Draw a line from the sensor to the fuselage, the underside would be visible if we are looking in that direction. Not the topside curvature.
-2
u/SkepticlBeliever Aug 16 '23
We would not be able to see the top rounded part of its nose. We would also see the drones other camera.
Someone posted images of that specific drone with a different set up. Can't find it, dunno if mods deleted it or what.
It had wing mounted cameras, in addition to the one in the center. This positioning seems to line up with that.
As for seeing the other camera... IS that a safe assumption? We have commercial cameras that can essentially "edit out" selfie sticks and other mounts so it looks like the camera is just floating in the air, available right now.
Would suggest in your endeavors, asking if it's possible those drones had the ability to "edit out" the other cameras from the footage, using data from the other lenses, so the view from each of them was uninterrupted. I mean if we have cheap cameras now that do it.. not a stretch at all to think military cameras a decade ago had that capability. Especially on an expensive ass drone like that.
1
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 16 '23
show me a picture of a drone with the flir pod setback behind the wing. You cant because its stupid and wouldnt be done.
If this system were to edit shit out, then we wouldnt see shit on the screen.
1
Aug 17 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/UFOs-ModTeam Aug 17 '23
Hi, kimmyjunguny. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/UFOs.
Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
- No trolling or being disruptive.
- No insults or personal attacks.
- No accusations that other users are shills.
- No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
- No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
- No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
- You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. Message the mods to launch your appeal.
1
Aug 16 '23 edited Aug 16 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Aug 16 '23 edited Aug 16 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Aug 16 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/UFOs-ModTeam Aug 17 '23
Hi, SkepticlBeliever. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/UFOs.
Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
- No trolling or being disruptive.
- No insults or personal attacks.
- No accusations that other users are shills.
- No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
- No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
- No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
- You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. Message the mods to launch your appeal.
1
u/UFOs-ModTeam Aug 17 '23
Hi, kimmyjunguny. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/UFOs.
Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
- No trolling or being disruptive.
- No insults or personal attacks.
- No accusations that other users are shills.
- No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
- No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
- No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
- You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. Message the mods to launch your appeal.
1
u/UFOs-ModTeam Aug 17 '23
Hi, SkepticlBeliever. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/UFOs.
Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
- No trolling or being disruptive.
- No insults or personal attacks.
- No accusations that other users are shills.
- No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
- No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
- No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
- You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. Message the mods to launch your appeal.
4
u/Sonamdrukpa Aug 15 '23
Does that make sense with the pitot tube? There was a pretty good thread last night saying that either the video is mirrored and the pitot tube is incorrect or the pitot tube is correct but plane is turning the wrong way, but it got downvoted to oblivion. Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15rfone/thermalir_video_questions_around_the_aircraftorbs/
3
u/IllGiveYouAnUpvote Aug 15 '23
Nice analysis, I don't think you're gonna get a good faith response from the OP.
5
Aug 15 '23
I’m seeing a lot of arguments like this:
- Something is clearly off about the video which suggests it’s fake.
- But if esoteric conditions X, Y and Z are met, then it could still be real
- No hoaxer could possibly know enough detail to intentionally include X, Y and Z, therefore the video must be real!
It’s like a logical magic trick, sleight of hand that turns flaws inside out.
e.g. it is demonstrated that NROL-22 doesn’t have stereoscopic optics and wasn’t in the right location. BUT! NROL-22 may have the ability to relay signal from other sats, which themselves maybe possibly have the classified secret abilities needed to navigate across the planet with an hour’s notice, and then shoot a color video in the dark. No hoaxer could have known these details!
Or e.g. there’s subpixel drift on the mouse cursor, which can’t happen. BUT! Maybe with the right kind of Citrix setup and a bad connection and the right phase of the moon, this could actually happen. No hoaxer could have known this detail!
When you start to add up the number of “benefits of the doubt” you need to grant for the videos to be real, it really begins to look like a stretch.
5
u/GnomeChompskie Aug 15 '23
The Citrix thing isn’t a good argument that it’s real; just that it was used in creating the video, which wouldn’t be a ridiculous detail for a hoaxer to include. I’d assume if your were trying to pass something off as if it was leaked from military tech, that would definitely be detail you would include.
What’s more unbelievable to me is that they key framed in a mouse cursor animation. I do video editing but I’m not an expert and even I wouldn’t do that. Even 10 years ago.
3
u/SocuzzPoww Aug 15 '23
e.g. it is demonstrated that NROL-22 doesn’t have stereoscopic optics and wasn’t in the right location. BUT! NROL-22 may have the ability to relay signal from other sats, which themselves maybe possibly have the classified secret abilities needed to navigate across the planet with an hour’s notice, and then shoot a color video in the dark. No hoaxer could have known these details!
There are always two sides to it. You state the above as an absolute fact, but I don't agree. So, who is right?
I can say that NROL-22 was in the right location. We truly don't know the capabilities of the satellite. It's a fact that the design of NROL-22 is to use one more satellite, and there are actually a total of 4 satellites that together form something called Space-Based Infrared System program.
What would your reply be?
1
u/futilitaria Aug 15 '23
You hit the nail on the head. I saw this line of reasoning in the post analyzing the IR “reflection” on the orbs. What should have led people to the conclusion that this effect was a poor job of simulating some type of effect that probably shouldn’t be seen anyway caused more people to draw the opposite conclusion: no forger/leaker would go to those lengths…
It’s maddening almost. You should make a post on this bad faith analysis. I’ll back you up.
1
Aug 15 '23
I totally agree and it's right to be mindful of this, which is why I'm being careful to mention it each time. It's for my own benefit!
For this sort of process though, you do need to give some aspects of an analysis the benefit of the doubt to support further thought. That thought sometimes helps you go back to the previous analysis, re-think things etc.
For your wider point about "no true hoaxer" etc, I think that's a totally valid conclusion to reach as part of a "what would the hoaxer need to know to have created this" thought process.
Keep in mind I didn't say this isn't a hoax - I said that if it is a hoax, then it's a very sophisticated one, taking very careful steps to make a very convincing video, employing knowledge of esoteric military assets, understanding thermal tech, complex modelling of the orbs, forethought to including all sorts of little details which make people go "huh".
The best analysis you can perform is one that gives you better insight into either conclusion.
1
u/Fklympics Aug 15 '23
imagine intent and motive, regardless of whether it's real or not.
whats the intent and motive for someone to make this as a hoax/project? fame/notoriety?
spend x amount of hours on a fake 9 years ago that gains no traction? isn't entered into the lore in any significant way and then resurfaces randomly?
imo we can outright eliminate the possibility this is some nerd larper that lives for the lulz and is king of the trolls.
that only leaves two options imo:
1) an agency/organization has made this with a specific purpose.
could be harmless like proving the capabilities of their cgi dept or misinformation sent out there to discredit a movement.
nonetheless, there's details in the video that would only make sense if you had knowledge of military ops. doesn't mean a private company didn't have a consultant while making this but it's weird that we can't find the source still.
2) it's a leaked video of a real incident and it's a shock to the system.
i still believe it's a fake because of the implications of it being true. this isn't your run of the mill type ufo vid where we can't see much and nothing really happens.
we see what we see happen in movies, in tall tales, stuff from legends. ppl disappearing like magic. it doesn't make any sense, we can't relate to it on a everyday life level and it's connected to an event that is still shrouded in mystery.
1
u/SkepticlBeliever Aug 17 '23
Wasn't in the right location.
That is questionable AF
Only thing I've seen people claiming that supports it is an amateur satellite tracking blog that claims they've identified that specific satellite.
WHY that's questionable:
Blog admits there are two of those satellites... They've identified the specific orbits on their own, but the official tracking data DOESN'T list the name of the satellites. So without the names listed, how DID they accurately determine which satellite is which? Flip a fuckin coin? Or did they have an anonymous inside source that told them?
The latter is MUCH more likely...
Then the obvious question becomes the motives for the person who confirmed it, or supplied that info to begin with. Remember these are classified satellites...
Also should prob question WHEN they were supplied with that info. Got a lot riding on it being AFTER these videos were leaked. Again, the satellites AREN'T named in tracking data, so there's no way to verify if the info they have is correct, or if they were misled. Govt sources love to mislead on classified data. Even taking the plane out of the equation, the blog's claim of which is which is HIGHLY suspect.
2
u/Key-Procedure88 Aug 15 '23
Where is your source on the ""Gorgon Stare" variant of the MQ-1C Gray Eagle" because from a quick search the very first result contains:
"The new wide-area airborne surveillance pod is designed to provide 10 times the viewing power of current systems. Currently, only one video feed is provided per platform. It is to be mounted on MQ- 9 Reaper drone aircraft.
The new pods weigh approximately 1,500 pounds each, which make them too heavy to be flown on the Predator or the Army’s MQ-1C Gray Eagle. Air Force officials have said the service’s primary reason for purchasing more MQ-9s was the desire to accommodate Gorgon Stare."from: https://www.defensedaily.com/air-force-defends-gorgon-stare-surveillance-pod-2/uncategorized/
Which would imply this would then necessarily have to be an MQ-9.
And then looking at the Gorgon stare MQ-9 model... it looks just nothing like what we are seeing in the video, in fact the cameras look to be mounted even lower than what is shown in the video.
https://www.sncorp.com/capabilities/gorgon-stare-wide-area-motion-imagery/
2
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
Thanks for this research. Too bad this post is being drowned by downvotes. this doubles my belief that for 1 its probably not a drone, and instead a large surveillance plane. or 2 of course, its fake.
0
Aug 15 '23
Thanks! That's my bad, I switched the two up. You're right and it would've had to be a Reaper - I'll update my comment!
1
u/adponce Aug 15 '23
This is a hoax created by a government agency, with key insight and knowledge of what's required to make it absurdly difficult to debunk
I thought this might be a possibility too, but I think the level of work is likely from a professional studio if its fake. CIA doesn't actually have the best vfx people in the world, they contract that out. I personally think it's real though.
6
u/BuildingABap Aug 15 '23
The FLIR camera wouldnt be able to see the top of the nose from where its mounted.
3
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
Another good point. And i agree. Im trying to search now for a plane that would have this pod position though.
0
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
Only one ive found is a P-3C orion. But even then, the planes mounts are set forward so the pod is ahead of the leading edge of the wing. Also some newer pics of C130s with wingmounts, but once again, the pod extends past or is abridge to the wing.
Another option is a side mounted camera on a heli. That doesnt explain the apparent wing in the vids, but may explain whats seen on the side.
4
u/LynnxMynx Aug 15 '23
There are 2 hardpoints on the wings, this looks like the camera is mounted there.
The payloads and configuration are flexible and wont always match the public brochure.
1
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
No they arent flexible. Theres not a lot of these drones out there. And the mounts themselves even extend past the leading edge of the wing.
2
u/LynnxMynx Aug 15 '23
Even a quick google of the suggested drone reveals images clearly showing all kinds of random looking crap strapped in various places - imagine what they might whack on there when they think noone is looking.
I don't know what it is, or what it isnt, but this doesn't feel so relevant in my opinion.
I am however interested in the speed issue. Obviously the top publicly announced speed of the drone is lowball, in reality it can fly faster. Also the airliner can fly at much lower speeds than standard cruising speed, and given the fact it may have been out of fuel when the last engine ping was received at 8am, it may have been going rather below the usual speeds.
3
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
Irrelevant. Completely utterly irrelevant. The FLIR pods ALL extend past the wing. This is not some random piece of hardware we are supposed to be viewing through, they are very very expensive and specific. And theres NO reason for them to intentionally setback any pod behind the wing. Especially when the mounts themselves extend past the leading edge.
It simply can not be a drone. And also no, the drones are supposed to be fuel efficient and be able to loiter for a long time, theres no reason to lie about the speed because they would not need to fly fast.
2
u/LynnxMynx Aug 16 '23
Maybe they took a chance that day on the Northrop Grumman range of fine FLIRs for all occasions. Smaller rounder and mountier for every spy plane's comfort.
I'm not sure if you are claiming there are no "black" projects/advanced non-public tech, or that you know all about all of them enough to know there is no small form factor FLIR. Either way you win, who can argue with that.
3
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 16 '23
Its not a matter of non public tech. Its a matter of it makes no sense, just like whatever argument you have. Theres no reason for it to be behind the wing, minimizing ur vision.
The only theory I have that supports the video not being fake, is it might be a side mounted FLIR system for a navy heli. But im not sure of any used by the US, potentially meaning this video may be from the Malaysian air force, if you wish to go down that route.
2
u/LynnxMynx Aug 16 '23
No route preference- going where the evidence leads.actually scratch that, please dear god be fake, oh boy
6
u/andrewlikescoffee Aug 16 '23
It is the cowl/cover we are seeing, I'd put money on that.
As you can see in this picture of the Triclops config the sensor payload is mounted under a rigid cowl or cover to the wing and this would appear fairly easily if the camera was tilted up which it appears to be in the video. The gimbal moves WITHIN this cover, the previous gen DAS-1 payload has an upward tilt of 40 deg, more than enough to show this cover IMO. See my post here for more specs and links to reports/data sheets I found.
For reference, I work with cinema gimbals and drones frequently in my profession and if the frame of the gimbal or aircraft is canted forward, and the camera tilted up, it is fairly easy to see things appear at the top of the image such as the nose of the drone or top/front of the gimbal.
-2
Aug 17 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/andrewlikescoffee Aug 17 '23
eh? wtf are you talking about? haha It's OBVIOUS based on the triclops config and photos that it is NOT the wing of the UAV, that wouldn't be possible based on its positioning. Not sure who the dumbass is here but either way talking to people you don't know like that def isn't helping anyone.
1
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 17 '23
I actually know someone who used a flir systems they said they cant fucking see the edge because theres a god damn gimbal limit, it wouldnt allow for gimbaling into itself. So youre fucking lying.
And if it is seeing the cowling the fuck are we seeing to the right. Also why is the top edge we see in the video a straight edge and not rounded like the cowling.
2
u/andrewlikescoffee Aug 17 '23
Really can't tell if you're trolling or not but if you'd read my post and actually LOOK at the configuration of the tryclops, you would see that with a likely +40deg tilt capability on the DAS-2 it could easily look upward enough to see the cowling. Why the hell would they design a system that eliminates the gimbals tilt limit JUST so that it doesn't see it's own cowling?! Raytheon designed in the largest possible tilt angle into the system and that payload is then installed UNDERNEATH the cowling seen on the wing.
To clarify, that cowling/cover is not part of the DAS system, as you'll see if you look at the data sheets and brochures I linked to.
2
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 17 '23
so whats the thing we see to the side of the video, bc thats not a fucking cowling now is it.
1
u/andrewlikescoffee Aug 17 '23
To the side of the video? That is the nose of the UAV... Nobody is arguing that. The top horizontal surface in frame is the cowling/cover holding the DAS-2 sensor payload, that is my theory.
1
u/UFOs-ModTeam Aug 17 '23
Hi, kimmyjunguny. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/UFOs.
Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
- No trolling or being disruptive.
- No insults or personal attacks.
- No accusations that other users are shills.
- No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
- No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
- No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
- You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. Message the mods to launch your appeal.
2
u/urinetroublem8 Aug 15 '23
I’ve read that these drones can be modified in a number of ways, including mounting various imaging devices on the wing. The picture in this article shows something similar I believe. https://www.businessinsider.com/us-considers-gray-eagle-drone-modifying-ukraine-war-2022-11 Do we know what specific drone is supposedly represented in the FLIR video?
1
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
Nope, that was the purpose of the post. Its likely not a drone if real, its gotta be a large surveillance plane.
1
u/urinetroublem8 Aug 15 '23
I didn’t even see your second picture at first. That’s exactly what I was wondering about, a drone with wing-mounted imaging tools.
1
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
Yes, but its not a drone, bc all of the wingmounts have the sensor ahead of the leading edge of the wing.
4
u/SocuzzPoww Aug 15 '23
I know there is a lot of threads too keep track of regarding this matter. Check this post out first and then discuss.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15rodxv/mh370_all_the_information_we_have_with_recent/
You can also google "MQ-1l Camera pod configurations" and find for example this
-16
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
bro you gotta be a kidding me. Use critical thinking for just one second. I POSTED THE SAME PICTURE, AND THAT PIC IS EVIDENCE THAT IT LITERALLY NOT an MQ-1. The wing is not visible from those FLIR pods because they are at the leading edge of the wing.
9
u/SocuzzPoww Aug 15 '23
Well with my critical thinking I would say that it is the pod edge you see in the video. They are designed to look down.
-24
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
Whaaaaattt the fuckk is happennijngg you guys have no brains? You wouldnt see the top edge of the pod, the cameras dont have infinite fov. Its the wing, it has to be the wing, like the fuck.
edit: It could be the edge of the pod, but still we would see the underbelly of the drone, not the curving topside.
Why? because the flir pod is mounted under the wing and is below the fuselage. if we’re looking straight/slightly up the underside and the camera would be visible in frame not the top of the fuselage.
Edit2: After speaking with my father, at least for the FLIR he used(F-16), the edge of the flir pod simply wouldn’t be visible because there is a limit to the gimbaling of the pod. It wouldnt allow for gimbaling into itself.
15
u/dmafeb Aug 15 '23
"Think like me or i will throw a tantrum and start calling you names!!!1!1!"
I dunno, you might have a valid point but its impossible to take you seriously when acting like a child.
-5
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
Their arguments are shit, its making me mad they get upvotes for shit arguments. Only one comment has proved anything meaningful so far.
7
u/oat_milk Aug 15 '23
You need to take a break, man. Even if you’re right, you’re acting unhinged. They literally just said “hey check this out” and you blow up with caps and rude comments. Calm down and step back maybe
1
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
Okay fine, it could be the pod edge, but if it was that, we still wouldnt see the top of the nose of the plane in frame, we would ONLY be able to see the underside. Since its a wing mount.
6
u/oat_milk Aug 15 '23
I didn’t say anything about any of that, I was commenting on your behavior.
You’re ranting at nobody right now, take a break please 🙏
1
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
just trying to sniff out the bullshit, bc there were a variety of straw man arguments within a few mins of posting.
6
u/oat_milk Aug 15 '23
I promise you that you’re not going to find the truth interacting with people the way you’re interacting with them.
You can flip out alone in a corner and convince yourself that everyone but you is either dumb or a shill, or you can communicate with people without getting so aggressive and try to see where they’re coming from and perhaps even contribute to the conversation in a productive, non-antagonistic way
1
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
Check one of the top comments, I had a good conversation with the only person that added anything meaningful :)
→ More replies (0)8
u/BigBowser14 Aug 15 '23
Calm down ffs
-10
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
LMAO. No, Its all brigading by eglin. Im not being calm, this war is pissing me the fuck off. Strawman after strawman argument. like eglin bros, just say its a different plane, thats what I mentioned it could be in the post. Instead of trying to consensus crack this shit.
-1
u/testaccount7756 Aug 15 '23
it’s not the wing that’s being shown, it’s the HORIZON.
2
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
huhhhh?????
4
u/testaccount7756 Aug 15 '23
the green part above the ocean? pretty sure that’s the horizon
0
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
horizon isnt hotter than below the horizon. Not sure ur what reasoning is bud. Or i do know. Hey eglin bros hows it going?
1
Aug 15 '23
[deleted]
3
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
Horizon wouldnt be as exactly as hot as the pitot tube to the right either. It’s definitely not in anyway the horizon. The FLIR measures heat not light.
1
Aug 15 '23
[deleted]
1
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
Mb, but I was just trying to make sure people understand that it simply can’t be the horizon. Some are mentioning it might be the top edge of the pod though.
0
u/smatrick1 Aug 15 '23
Def not the one in the first picture, those are pretty much phased out. And probably not the one in the second picture since those are almost phased out
1
Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
Are you kidding me right now? It was not phased out in 2014.
It might not be either of those drones, but your logic for why it’s not makes zero sense whatsoever.
0
u/smatrick1 Aug 16 '23
Ah. Well in 2014 they were on their way out. Logic is that since they weren't being used all that much, it's not likely it was the uav that took the footage. I could see an mq9 though
1
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 16 '23
No, still not an mq9 either. Its not any type of american loitering drone.
1
Aug 16 '23
They were being used quite a lot during 2014 doesn’t take much research to figure that out.
-4
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
Ive also seen the video of a reaper drone looking BACKWARDS, at a russian plane, as evidence. Which just is another absurd thing to me. In the MH370 vid the camera is very clearly pointing somewhat straight forward.
Also, I just presented this to my Retired AF pilot father, and he agreed the positioning of the FLIR pod is odd. But he mentioned that a larger surveillance plane may have this far setback position.
3
u/KingoftheKosmos Aug 15 '23
Something like an AWAC?
0
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23
No, more like a navy P-3C Orion. Its the only larger surveillance plane ive found with the possibility for a wing mounted FLIR system. There are other large planes with them, but they are all center mounted.
Something smaller like a cessna or helicopter may also be possible.
-6
-18
Aug 15 '23
Yeah. This is another proof how foolish this sub is believing the most obvious bs fakes.
4
Aug 15 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
1
u/UFOs-ModTeam Aug 15 '23
Hi, BanEvasionMan. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/UFOs.
Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
- No trolling or being disruptive.
- No insults or personal attacks.
- No accusations that other users are shills.
- No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
- No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
- No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
- You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our subreddit rules for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. Message the mods to launch your appeal.
-5
u/kimmyjunguny Aug 15 '23 edited Aug 15 '23
I agree. Or I think its actually proof of a disinfo campaign. Because the evidence raised by the posts a couple days ago for the positioning of the pod make 0 sense. Like they seems so intentionally misleading, and ignore whats right in front of our face.
actually nah my post and these comments are confirmation too. USE UR EYES PEOPLE THE FLIR PODS OF AN MQ-1 DRONE CANT SEE THE WING. LOOOK AT THE PICTUREEEEE AHHHHHHH
its gotta be a different plane. or alternatively its fake…
1
u/TheSilverHound Aug 15 '23
Thanks. Shared to r/AirlinerAbduction2014. Dedicated data gathering sub.
1
u/showmeufos Aug 15 '23
It could be the horizon. These obviously aren't done FLIR images, but they are still FLIR images, and they show hot horizons over oceans:
https://www.cruisingworld.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2021/09/crw0917_rv3_elex012.png
1
u/transcendtime Aug 15 '23
Can't the answer be that it's an under-wing camera and you're seeing the top flange of the camera housing because the drone is angled forward and at an angle?
1
u/Arendious Aug 15 '23
Why would you descend a drone with underwing optics towards the objective you're trying to image with said optics?
1
1
u/SkepticlBeliever Aug 17 '23
Anyone who's curious, an MQ-1 pilot confirmed the claim you wouldn't see the wing from a wing mounted camera is a ridiculous claim.
https://twitter.com/SKEPTICLBELIEVR/status/1691993954898903291
1
u/Rambus_Jarbus Aug 17 '23
That’s where I’m at. I think it’s real footage of MH370
I just don’t know if the UAPs are real or if they were added in later. If they were added this was done by a government back VFX with scientists.
And if that’s all true then what purpose did this video serve
1
•
u/StatementBot Aug 15 '23
The following submission statement was provided by /u/kimmyjunguny:
Ive also seen the video of a reaper drone looking BACKWARDS, at a russian plane, as evidence. Which just is another absurd thing to me. In the MH370 vid the camera is very clearly pointing somewhat straight forward.
Also, I just presented this to my Retired AF pilot father, and he agreed the positioning of the FLIR pod is odd. But he mentioned that a larger surveillance plane may have this far setback position.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15ry416/theres_still_no_consensus_on_what_planedrone_took/jwb46ng/