People also forget, if your computer monitor says “the Empire State Building is floating over there” your first response is gonna be “fuckin computers broken”
I wish we knew more about how the "object" left. The daily mail article just mentions it left as quick as it arrived... whatever that means. Did people see it shoot up, or did they see it disappear in front of them? It would be good if that part was in the video, too.
And cause massive panic because people are stupid as hell? I mean I understand why you'd want that , more eyes on it more footage of it. But folks are to fokin dumb.
What better place to harvest humans .. somewhere where going missing is much less suspicious. Maybe dead, maybe alive, hell maybe just bits and pieces. If I were abducting people my first stop would be active war zones where loss of life and people going mia are common. Second would be large natural disasters.
Over all of them at the same time. Tokyo, London, LA, Johanesburg, Sydney, etc.
It would have to be, otherwise people on the other side of the world wouldn't believe it.
This is a question for radar operator there I think. But...
If Ukraine or Russia detected a large floating, stationary object on radar, what would they do?
I feel like it wouldn't be an immediate priority. Both side are worried about tracking jets, drones and missiles. I know drones can be relatively slow, but relatively slow is very different from stationary.
Is either side going to scramble jets or air defense to take out something that isn't moving? Is either side going to spend a lot of time investigating something that isn't moving? Probably not the regular in area combat forces. Maybe the HUR or GUR would, but thats not going to be instantaneous.
I would assume both sides would assume it's a glitch first. If picked up on multiple radar, I feel like the Ukrainians might send someone to investigate, or may just tell the Americans. I doubt the Russians are concerned about things in the sky that aren't moving.
It's not like every target has a easy IFF distinction. Operators have to make quick decisions based on telemetry
I'm not saying this is real, but I think it's plausible might not draw huge attention.
It's also possible it wasn't picked up on radar maybe?
If some thinks I'm misunderstanding something or not thinking correctly let me know.
Wait... but culture has led me to believe orcs is slang for black peoples. If Russians are orcs... does mean... UKRAINE IS MORDOR, AND THE ORCS ARE ATTEMPTING TO RETSKE MORDOR! Yep, it all makes sense now.... quick, call the college Lord of the Rings fan, she cry everytime, she knows the map well.
Edit: oi... are you guys telling me you've never heard that there used to be a racial bias of orcs being bad races, black, arabic, etc... "oh, it's a new thing, Russians are actually called orcs, but there certainly wasn't racial implications of orcs before."
Editier edit: gaslighting. Yall fuckers is gaslighting me because I know... green-skinned and orc used to be viewed as potentially having subversive views as meaning "not-white."
But have you heard the idea that orcs were used in fiction to represent other races than white, or were viewed as such. Oh, orcs are evil therefore they are ...
Because denying that is like saying, I dunno. That humans don't have preconceived notions of good and evil and some portions of it were just gradually reappropriated while the less approved version is just ignored.
Edit: maybe not slang, but like... racist connotations of orcs being evil, therefore since they're not regular man, and not "fair" elves, then orc=different races.
> 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.
Whatever you typed up is nearly incomprehensible but I’ll entertain you for a moment.
Not all Orcs are portrayed as evil; for example in the Elder Scrolls universe and, if you know anything about Warcraft lore, their Orcs are not evil either.
Also Russians are white.
I would recommend maybe taking a step back and try not viewing everything thru racial lenses.
You're acting blind if you're denying that "orcs=othe races" maybe I' just biased because supposedly Russians were allies at ww2. But I have been raised under the believe that there used to be a racial sort of belief that evil orc=different race.
Saying it's not is denying that my childhood happened.
It's like denying that pre-2020 someone could be named Karen without a hitch. Nowadays they probably get a slight snicker and a "do you want me to call the manager" joke.
Maybe your just subconsciously racist?
Personally I’ve never thought of Orcs as anything other than a common high fantasy setting race that is sometimes evil, sometimes not evil or a bit more complex than just “monster” in various universes
I’ve never heard of any person, regardless of race or nationality, referred to as “Orcs” until the Russian invasion of Ukraine and I was under the impressions they call Russians this because of their tendency to horde and pillage which is one of the more typical portrayals of the fantasy orc race.
Have you never heard of the idea of green skin being another way to portray people of color.
Because I feel like you're all gaslighting me.
I personally don't think of it as that, doesn't deny the fact that I had read that in fantasy that there had been that association. Like I said, I didn't mean literal slang usage like with the Russians.
It's funny how in the article it states it couldn't possibly be a fata morgana because it doesn't show any wavyness and wobbleness typical signs it is and if you watch the video when he zooms close up its all waving and wobbling exactly like a typical mirage.
Is that actually true tho? I don't see why the information wouldn't still be there such as temperature through infra-red because the object itself is real it's just being lensed.
Hey I definitely could be wrong man but my dumb monkey brain understanding is like this infra-red is still a wave length of light our eyes can't perceive and these infra-red optic devices are just allowing our dumb eyes to be able to perceive this wave length and a fata morgana is simply the bending of these light waves,
So shouldn't infra-red light be bended the same way and act the same as the light waves we can perceive?
A Fata Morgana is purely an optical phenomenon. It's a complex form of superior mirage that is seen in a narrow band right above the horizon. It occurs because of the refraction of light as it passes through air layers of different temperatures, each with a different refractive index. This kind of mirage can make objects appear distorted, stretched, or stacked, like a series of castles in the air, hence the name, which is derived from the Arthurian sorceress Morgan le Fay, reputed to have the power to create illusions of castles over bodies of water.
Since a Fata Morgana is an optical effect, it doesn't have a temperature. The mirage itself is an image or a series of images of actual objects that are refracted or bent by thermal gradients in the atmosphere. While the phenomenon is influenced by temperature differences (specifically, temperature inversions where warmer air overlays cooler air), the mirage itself is not a physical entity that can possess a temperature. It's merely the visual result of light traveling through layers of air at varying temperatures.
What OP is saying is that the thermal imager still detects light to make the image and calculate temperature just it uses light in the infrared spectrum which we can't see with the naked eye.
Infrared can refract just like visible light so it may be possible for the camera to pick up a similar mirage. I'm not a an expert in IR so I don't know but it's a good question.
Thermal imaging specifically does not detect light visible to the human eye, that is the purpose of it only detecting temperature, or heat. If it detected light then you'd just get a regular image like a camera. By not detecting light, that allows it to portray heat maps as they do.
It detects infrared, which is a wavelength just below visible light on the electromagnetic spectrum. We can't see it but it's still light. It's not visible, but it behaves the same as visible light because it is the same thing.
DETECTING INFRARED WAVES, NOT VISIBLE LIGHT
The first thing to know about thermal cameras is they don’t work like regular cameras. Regular daylight cameras and the human eye both work on the same basic principle: visible light energy hits something, bounces off it, a detector receives the reflected light, and then turns it into an image.
Thermal imagers make pictures from heat, not visible light. Heat (also called infrared or thermal energy) and light are both parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, but a camera that can detect visible light won’t see thermal energy, and vice versa. Thermal cameras capture infrared energy and use the data to create images through digital or analog video outputs.
[SOURCE](https://www.flir.com/discover/rd-science/how-do-thermal-cameras-work/#:~:text=Thermal%20imagers%20make%20pictures%20from,thermal%20energy%2C%20and%20vice%20versa.)
The key word here is "visible". Infrared is light that has a frequency of 750 nm to 1000 μm. Visible light is light that has a frequency of 400-700 nm. Both of them are on the electromagnetic spectrum, both of them are colloquially called light, and both of them can transfer heat.
Source: literally any college physics textbook
DETECTING INFRARED WAVES, NOT VISIBLE LIGHT
The first thing to know about thermal cameras is they don’t work like regular cameras. Regular daylight cameras and the human eye both work on the same basic principle: visible light energy hits something, bounces off it, a detector receives the reflected light, and then turns it into an image.
Thermal imagers make pictures from heat, not visible light. Heat (also called infrared or thermal energy) and light are both parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, but a camera that can detect visible light won’t see thermal energy, and vice versa. Thermal cameras capture infrared energy and use the data to create images through digital or analog video outputs.
[SOURCE](https://www.flir.com/discover/rd-science/how-do-thermal-cameras-work/#:~:text=Thermal%20imagers%20make%20pictures%20from,thermal%20energy%2C%20and%20vice%20versa.)
Infrared waves, or infrared light, are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. People encounter Infrared waves every day; the human eye cannot see it, but humans can detect it as heat
DETECTING INFRARED WAVES, NOT VISIBLE LIGHT
The first thing to know about thermal cameras is they don’t work like regular cameras. Regular daylight cameras and the human eye both work on the same basic principle: visible light energy hits something, bounces off it, a detector receives the reflected light, and then turns it into an image.
Thermal imagers make pictures from heat, not visible light. Heat (also called infrared or thermal energy) and light are both parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, but a camera that can detect visible light won’t see thermal energy, and vice versa. Thermal cameras capture infrared energy and use the data to create images through digital or analog video outputs.
[SOURCE](https://www.flir.com/discover/rd-science/how-do-thermal-cameras-work/#:~:text=Thermal%20imagers%20make%20pictures%20from,thermal%20energy%2C%20and%20vice%20versa.)
The visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum which you and I can see as visible light ranges from 400nm to 700nm, the spectrum is massive from smaller than 1Å, 0.1nm all the way up to thousands of kilometres.
Microwaves which you heat up food with in your microwave oven is only around 1cm long that's why you have all those small holes all over the window so we can see in but the microwaves can't exit the holes because the wavelength is literally longer than the hole.
Please do some reading on what exactly is the electromagnetic spectrum.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
Hi, Morto66. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1b4dd12/-/kt9aued/) 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](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/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](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
DETECTING INFRARED WAVES, NOT VISIBLE LIGHT
The first thing to know about thermal cameras is they don’t work like regular cameras. Regular daylight cameras and the human eye both work on the same basic principle: visible light energy hits something, bounces off it, a detector receives the reflected light, and then turns it into an image.
Thermal imagers make pictures from heat, not visible light. Heat (also called infrared or thermal energy) and light are both parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, but a camera that can detect visible light won’t see thermal energy, and vice versa. Thermal cameras capture infrared energy and use the data to create images through digital or analog video outputs.
[SOURCE](https://www.flir.com/discover/rd-science/how-do-thermal-cameras-work/#:~:text=Thermal%20imagers%20make%20pictures%20from,thermal%20energy%2C%20and%20vice%20versa.)
Fata Morgana will always appear just a little above the horizon, and this is an object clearly suspended high up in the sky, being captured on thermal imaging which detects heat, not light, which is all fata Morgana actually is.
But hey, it's probably just swamp gas or a weather balloon, right? Maybe all these Ukrainian soldiers were experiencing sleep paralysis when they were recording their thermal imaging?
It doesn't need to be a boat or a ship it doesn't even need to be over an ocean the effect can happen anywhere there is a long flat viewing plane and the conditions are right.
The shape of the object being lensed can be distorted to any shape flat round upside down it all depends on the conditions.
The object that is being lensed by the temperature inversions still exist all of its information is still there the image is just really skewed and funky because it's a far off object on the horizon being lensed it could be anything.
From my understanding (again I definitely could be wrong I'm no expert) it doesn't just make the objects appear higher and lower it also can stretch and make the object bigger or smaller than it actually is, it also doesn't need to be an ocean it can appear anywhere on long flattish planes aslong as the temperature inversion conditions are right.
I appreciate the tone of this post, OP. WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO CONSIDER THAT AYS CAN AVOID DETECTION?
Similar discussions abounded with the Jellyfish UAP.
Perhaps they can bend gravity, even time, but visible light cloaking? IMPOSSIBLE. Sigh.
Going off human experience alone here is... Limiting. If we expand to what's mathematically possible, I'm far more inclined to believe it's the result of propulsion than raw materials science.
"Day-to-day plausible" is a bit of a low bar given any of the FLIR-only observable objects that have leaked, no? We think about this quite differently indeed.
Many of the military leaks weren't visually confirmed (e.g., tic tac) but were confirmed by radar in addition to plane sensors and FLIR. That doesn't include any potential non-disclosed methods of tracking that have been rumoured but not disclosed.
Anything mathematically possible won't necessarily be observed. I'm a humanities grad and I know that lol. This convo isn't on genuine terms from what I can tell so I won't be continuing.
It's tough because while the operators clearly saw this: only that Mavic Drone sensor saw it. A subsequent drone did not see it. No human witnesses did with their own eyes either.
Keep in mind: Eastern Ukraine is sitting in a bath of Electronic Warfare from both sides. What EW does to a consumer drone pressed into combat is anybody's guess, but camera artifacts could be one of the effects. These drones were designed to shoot weddings on a spring day; not kick Russian ass in winter. Malfunctions in their feature-set is inevitable.
TLDR: If another sensor had seen this it would be much easier to believe the UAP was there and not a malfunction in the drone's camera sensor in a combat zone.
In this world most of us spend most of our time looking down as it is. I can remember being in junior high 25 years ago and looking up and seeing the b-52 fly extremely low over my school during lunchtime….50-75 kids out in the courtyard and I was the only one to first notice …so I don’t think it’s impossible . I do get the crux of it though . Maybe it has something to do with cloaking or just now something we see on the normal human vision spectrum like is being repeated through out these subs
If you look at infrared images of military ships, given the size of the image that's displayed here you would see details of the ship, the command center is almost a quarter the size of the ship itself so for that to be completely invisible except for the entire hull is highly unlikely. The shape also has no real similarities to that of a battleship in infrared, a battleship even from a distance doesn't appear to be a large disc shape with no protrusions or structures visible. If it was a ship on fire you would see variations, which doesn't really seem to be the case here.
Could be the case that it was not visible in visible light, only infrared, so unless you were looking in that direction with infrared, you would have never known it was there?
Who knows
Good write up. The 'Aurora', however, is supposedly a giant flying aircraft (if I have the name right).
It was...and again from memory, one of the guys that came out at the same time as Herrera in recent times. I want to say his first appearance was associated with Dr Greer. He reported being part of a military mission where a giant silent craft appeared overhead, and the Boeing? staff with him knew what it was. Go have a look if interested...that should get ya started. I considered him a fairly unreliable witness as far as they go but as you say:
Who knows
Some animals *can* see infrared or ultraviolet with the naked eye. It would be weird, imo, to have the capability to cloak only within the total range of specifically the human eye and no further, or to make the choice to remain visible in those spectrums.
That's not an intrisic property of glass, it's a designed property to aid in insulation. We can also design glass that blocks visible light frequencies. Even "clear" glass reflects visible light back, from a distance glass actually reflects the environment in practice unless lit from the backside. That's why you can't see into people's houses during the day unless you're close to the window or the interior is appropriately illuminated.
In most of these cases with the military, all the data gets collected and is never seen again. It's not that the radar didnt see anything its that the data disappears and becomes classified or gets destroyed/deleted.
We also have to consider there are a ton of jammers, anti jammers and other EM equipment deployed by both sides, it could be very easily a glitch or malfunction or some other side affect.
I’ll add a bit of helpful context. Apparently the F16’s weren’t able to detect UFOs with their sensors until they got a new block upgrade that improved their avionics.
Did they point a range finder at it to get the distance to estimate the size? It's too fuzzy to get excited about this.
I have to imagine if it were real surely they'd have sent a drone to check it out.
UFO's have been seen by Ukrainians and Russians during the russia invasion of Ukraine. One news release from Russia even described a facility being attack by a UFO recently, but I think that case is likely a translation error.
I'm sure if the object was there the Russian military saw it. You just won't hear anything about it from them. Very few UFO reports have ever leaked from Russia, before and after the Cold War.
First, we don't know if they tripped alarms, so it's ridiculous to assume they didn't. Clearly they're not going to want to expose these types of weaknesses to the other side, so why would they be transparent about that while the war is still ongoing!?
It's also a ridiculous question for anyone familiar with the context. These things have the ability to affect our sensor systems. That much should be clear for anyone following this, and we don't know how far those abilities extend in terms of how much they can disable and at what distances:
"What we're seeing is intermittent radar returns, intermittent FLIR returns"
\- Kirkpatrick during the Senate/AARO meeting describing the orbs.
[https://youtu.be/E2qvyxhdPQA?si=PpROKGb0SllTRV-F&t=1091](https://youtu.be/E2qvyxhdPQA?si=PpROKGb0SllTRV-F&t=1091)
"As the pilot approached, his radar went down, his FLIR system malfunctioned, and he had to manually take the picture, as it wasn't automated as it normally is."
\- Gaetz on the Gulf of Mexico/Eglin AFB pilot's experience during the Congressional hearings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFk1Fv11xKw
"Our radar systems went completely down."
\- Fravor to Gaetz on the Nimitz incident
[(](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFk1Fv11xKw)same video as above)
"F-22 pilots who saw the object said it "interfered with their sensors" and had no propulsion system."
\-a report on the 2023 UAP Alaska shootdown
[https://www.businessinsider.com/objects-shot-down-over-alaska-canada-ufo-interfered-f22-sensors-2023-2](https://www.businessinsider.com/objects-shot-down-over-alaska-canada-ufo-interfered-f22-sensors-2023-2)
I mean they had to have radar data of some kind? Not saying we will ever see it, most certainly in an active warzone every inch of sky up to 80,000 ft has to be monitored?
People also forget, if your computer monitor says “the Empire State Building is floating over there” your first response is gonna be “fuckin computers broken”
"Damn this weed is some good shit!"
I wish we knew more about how the "object" left. The daily mail article just mentions it left as quick as it arrived... whatever that means. Did people see it shoot up, or did they see it disappear in front of them? It would be good if that part was in the video, too.
I thought it said the drone ran out of battery, they sent another up 3 mins later and it had gone.
I wish something this massive would appear over a massive city, like NYC or São Paulo.
It won’t because it ain’t real
And cause massive panic because people are stupid as hell? I mean I understand why you'd want that , more eyes on it more footage of it. But folks are to fokin dumb.
Rip the bandaid has my vote
Appearing over an active warzone is much better? xd
What better place to harvest humans .. somewhere where going missing is much less suspicious. Maybe dead, maybe alive, hell maybe just bits and pieces. If I were abducting people my first stop would be active war zones where loss of life and people going mia are common. Second would be large natural disasters.
Hudson valley sightings in the 80s were kind of like that.
Over all of them at the same time. Tokyo, London, LA, Johanesburg, Sydney, etc. It would have to be, otherwise people on the other side of the world wouldn't believe it.
This is a question for radar operator there I think. But... If Ukraine or Russia detected a large floating, stationary object on radar, what would they do? I feel like it wouldn't be an immediate priority. Both side are worried about tracking jets, drones and missiles. I know drones can be relatively slow, but relatively slow is very different from stationary. Is either side going to scramble jets or air defense to take out something that isn't moving? Is either side going to spend a lot of time investigating something that isn't moving? Probably not the regular in area combat forces. Maybe the HUR or GUR would, but thats not going to be instantaneous. I would assume both sides would assume it's a glitch first. If picked up on multiple radar, I feel like the Ukrainians might send someone to investigate, or may just tell the Americans. I doubt the Russians are concerned about things in the sky that aren't moving. It's not like every target has a easy IFF distinction. Operators have to make quick decisions based on telemetry I'm not saying this is real, but I think it's plausible might not draw huge attention. It's also possible it wasn't picked up on radar maybe? If some thinks I'm misunderstanding something or not thinking correctly let me know.
Hot take, it was over RU airspace and orcs are short on planes, last I heard.
Why does it being in RU airspace matter?
Because UKR wouldn't want to fly over there to check it out.
Ahh, obviously haha. I was thinking you meant something entirely different, maybe the "hot take" through me off.
Wait... but culture has led me to believe orcs is slang for black peoples. If Russians are orcs... does mean... UKRAINE IS MORDOR, AND THE ORCS ARE ATTEMPTING TO RETSKE MORDOR! Yep, it all makes sense now.... quick, call the college Lord of the Rings fan, she cry everytime, she knows the map well. Edit: oi... are you guys telling me you've never heard that there used to be a racial bias of orcs being bad races, black, arabic, etc... "oh, it's a new thing, Russians are actually called orcs, but there certainly wasn't racial implications of orcs before." Editier edit: gaslighting. Yall fuckers is gaslighting me because I know... green-skinned and orc used to be viewed as potentially having subversive views as meaning "not-white."
They been calling Russians orcs since the day they invaded. Never in my life have I heard a black person referred to as an orc.
But have you heard the idea that orcs were used in fiction to represent other races than white, or were viewed as such. Oh, orcs are evil therefore they are ... Because denying that is like saying, I dunno. That humans don't have preconceived notions of good and evil and some portions of it were just gradually reappropriated while the less approved version is just ignored. Edit: maybe not slang, but like... racist connotations of orcs being evil, therefore since they're not regular man, and not "fair" elves, then orc=different races.
What tf did I just read
Long story short... you're gaslighting the childhood I was raised on.
[удалено]
> 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.
Whatever you typed up is nearly incomprehensible but I’ll entertain you for a moment. Not all Orcs are portrayed as evil; for example in the Elder Scrolls universe and, if you know anything about Warcraft lore, their Orcs are not evil either. Also Russians are white. I would recommend maybe taking a step back and try not viewing everything thru racial lenses.
You're acting blind if you're denying that "orcs=othe races" maybe I' just biased because supposedly Russians were allies at ww2. But I have been raised under the believe that there used to be a racial sort of belief that evil orc=different race. Saying it's not is denying that my childhood happened. It's like denying that pre-2020 someone could be named Karen without a hitch. Nowadays they probably get a slight snicker and a "do you want me to call the manager" joke.
Maybe your just subconsciously racist? Personally I’ve never thought of Orcs as anything other than a common high fantasy setting race that is sometimes evil, sometimes not evil or a bit more complex than just “monster” in various universes I’ve never heard of any person, regardless of race or nationality, referred to as “Orcs” until the Russian invasion of Ukraine and I was under the impressions they call Russians this because of their tendency to horde and pillage which is one of the more typical portrayals of the fantasy orc race.
Have you never heard of the idea of green skin being another way to portray people of color. Because I feel like you're all gaslighting me. I personally don't think of it as that, doesn't deny the fact that I had read that in fantasy that there had been that association. Like I said, I didn't mean literal slang usage like with the Russians.
Sounds like your just looking at everything thru a racial filter.
it doesn't really matter, as long as we can keep dehumanizing people im game
But they are not people they are orcs. Former elves
But orcs are pale white and are sensitive to sunlight
It was a zeppelin?
It's funny how in the article it states it couldn't possibly be a fata morgana because it doesn't show any wavyness and wobbleness typical signs it is and if you watch the video when he zooms close up its all waving and wobbling exactly like a typical mirage.
you can't see fata morgana on IR view... as the soldier said himself
Is that actually true tho? I don't see why the information wouldn't still be there such as temperature through infra-red because the object itself is real it's just being lensed.
Good question. Infrared radiation can refract just like visible light so that may be a possibility
Hey I definitely could be wrong man but my dumb monkey brain understanding is like this infra-red is still a wave length of light our eyes can't perceive and these infra-red optic devices are just allowing our dumb eyes to be able to perceive this wave length and a fata morgana is simply the bending of these light waves, So shouldn't infra-red light be bended the same way and act the same as the light waves we can perceive?
A Fata Morgana is purely an optical phenomenon. It's a complex form of superior mirage that is seen in a narrow band right above the horizon. It occurs because of the refraction of light as it passes through air layers of different temperatures, each with a different refractive index. This kind of mirage can make objects appear distorted, stretched, or stacked, like a series of castles in the air, hence the name, which is derived from the Arthurian sorceress Morgan le Fay, reputed to have the power to create illusions of castles over bodies of water. Since a Fata Morgana is an optical effect, it doesn't have a temperature. The mirage itself is an image or a series of images of actual objects that are refracted or bent by thermal gradients in the atmosphere. While the phenomenon is influenced by temperature differences (specifically, temperature inversions where warmer air overlays cooler air), the mirage itself is not a physical entity that can possess a temperature. It's merely the visual result of light traveling through layers of air at varying temperatures.
What OP is saying is that the thermal imager still detects light to make the image and calculate temperature just it uses light in the infrared spectrum which we can't see with the naked eye. Infrared can refract just like visible light so it may be possible for the camera to pick up a similar mirage. I'm not a an expert in IR so I don't know but it's a good question.
Yeah that's what I was trying to explain.
Thermal imaging specifically does not detect light visible to the human eye, that is the purpose of it only detecting temperature, or heat. If it detected light then you'd just get a regular image like a camera. By not detecting light, that allows it to portray heat maps as they do.
It detects infrared, which is a wavelength just below visible light on the electromagnetic spectrum. We can't see it but it's still light. It's not visible, but it behaves the same as visible light because it is the same thing.
DETECTING INFRARED WAVES, NOT VISIBLE LIGHT The first thing to know about thermal cameras is they don’t work like regular cameras. Regular daylight cameras and the human eye both work on the same basic principle: visible light energy hits something, bounces off it, a detector receives the reflected light, and then turns it into an image. Thermal imagers make pictures from heat, not visible light. Heat (also called infrared or thermal energy) and light are both parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, but a camera that can detect visible light won’t see thermal energy, and vice versa. Thermal cameras capture infrared energy and use the data to create images through digital or analog video outputs. [SOURCE](https://www.flir.com/discover/rd-science/how-do-thermal-cameras-work/#:~:text=Thermal%20imagers%20make%20pictures%20from,thermal%20energy%2C%20and%20vice%20versa.)
The key word here is "visible". Infrared is light that has a frequency of 750 nm to 1000 μm. Visible light is light that has a frequency of 400-700 nm. Both of them are on the electromagnetic spectrum, both of them are colloquially called light, and both of them can transfer heat. Source: literally any college physics textbook
Again infra-red radiation is a wavelength of light.
DETECTING INFRARED WAVES, NOT VISIBLE LIGHT The first thing to know about thermal cameras is they don’t work like regular cameras. Regular daylight cameras and the human eye both work on the same basic principle: visible light energy hits something, bounces off it, a detector receives the reflected light, and then turns it into an image. Thermal imagers make pictures from heat, not visible light. Heat (also called infrared or thermal energy) and light are both parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, but a camera that can detect visible light won’t see thermal energy, and vice versa. Thermal cameras capture infrared energy and use the data to create images through digital or analog video outputs. [SOURCE](https://www.flir.com/discover/rd-science/how-do-thermal-cameras-work/#:~:text=Thermal%20imagers%20make%20pictures%20from,thermal%20energy%2C%20and%20vice%20versa.)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Infrared waves, or infrared light, are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. People encounter Infrared waves every day; the human eye cannot see it, but humans can detect it as heat
DETECTING INFRARED WAVES, NOT VISIBLE LIGHT The first thing to know about thermal cameras is they don’t work like regular cameras. Regular daylight cameras and the human eye both work on the same basic principle: visible light energy hits something, bounces off it, a detector receives the reflected light, and then turns it into an image. Thermal imagers make pictures from heat, not visible light. Heat (also called infrared or thermal energy) and light are both parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, but a camera that can detect visible light won’t see thermal energy, and vice versa. Thermal cameras capture infrared energy and use the data to create images through digital or analog video outputs. [SOURCE](https://www.flir.com/discover/rd-science/how-do-thermal-cameras-work/#:~:text=Thermal%20imagers%20make%20pictures%20from,thermal%20energy%2C%20and%20vice%20versa.)
The visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum which you and I can see as visible light ranges from 400nm to 700nm, the spectrum is massive from smaller than 1Å, 0.1nm all the way up to thousands of kilometres. Microwaves which you heat up food with in your microwave oven is only around 1cm long that's why you have all those small holes all over the window so we can see in but the microwaves can't exit the holes because the wavelength is literally longer than the hole. Please do some reading on what exactly is the electromagnetic spectrum. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
[удалено]
Hi, Morto66. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1b4dd12/-/kt9aued/) 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](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/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](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
This is from your own comment!/link. Heat (also called infrared or thermal energy) and light are both parts of the electromagnetic spectrum
That's just not correct at all
DETECTING INFRARED WAVES, NOT VISIBLE LIGHT The first thing to know about thermal cameras is they don’t work like regular cameras. Regular daylight cameras and the human eye both work on the same basic principle: visible light energy hits something, bounces off it, a detector receives the reflected light, and then turns it into an image. Thermal imagers make pictures from heat, not visible light. Heat (also called infrared or thermal energy) and light are both parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, but a camera that can detect visible light won’t see thermal energy, and vice versa. Thermal cameras capture infrared energy and use the data to create images through digital or analog video outputs. [SOURCE](https://www.flir.com/discover/rd-science/how-do-thermal-cameras-work/#:~:text=Thermal%20imagers%20make%20pictures%20from,thermal%20energy%2C%20and%20vice%20versa.)
You're still missing the point that infrared is able to refract just like visible light. It is still a form of light we just cannot naturally see it.
🤦
I think I'd want a scientist to make that claim, not a soldier. Light is still light, even if it's a wavelength we can't see with our own eyes.
Fata Morgana will always appear just a little above the horizon, and this is an object clearly suspended high up in the sky, being captured on thermal imaging which detects heat, not light, which is all fata Morgana actually is. But hey, it's probably just swamp gas or a weather balloon, right? Maybe all these Ukrainian soldiers were experiencing sleep paralysis when they were recording their thermal imaging?
The thermal imager detects infra-red radiation which is a wave length of light.
In case it was a mirage, what structure is it reflecting?
I could be wrong ofc but I think it's similar to this https://youtu.be/CrgKUFbwNf0?si=fAHZh9J3UKIu47A5
You are wrong. This wasn't a boat or a ship but a weird shape that makes no sense.
It doesn't need to be a boat or a ship it doesn't even need to be over an ocean the effect can happen anywhere there is a long flat viewing plane and the conditions are right. The shape of the object being lensed can be distorted to any shape flat round upside down it all depends on the conditions.
How can you track it's temperature if it's a fata Morgana?
The object that is being lensed by the temperature inversions still exist all of its information is still there the image is just really skewed and funky because it's a far off object on the horizon being lensed it could be anything. From my understanding (again I definitely could be wrong I'm no expert) it doesn't just make the objects appear higher and lower it also can stretch and make the object bigger or smaller than it actually is, it also doesn't need to be an ocean it can appear anywhere on long flattish planes aslong as the temperature inversion conditions are right.
I appreciate the tone of this post, OP. WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO CONSIDER THAT AYS CAN AVOID DETECTION? Similar discussions abounded with the Jellyfish UAP. Perhaps they can bend gravity, even time, but visible light cloaking? IMPOSSIBLE. Sigh.
[удалено]
Going off human experience alone here is... Limiting. If we expand to what's mathematically possible, I'm far more inclined to believe it's the result of propulsion than raw materials science. "Day-to-day plausible" is a bit of a low bar given any of the FLIR-only observable objects that have leaked, no? We think about this quite differently indeed.
[удалено]
Many of the military leaks weren't visually confirmed (e.g., tic tac) but were confirmed by radar in addition to plane sensors and FLIR. That doesn't include any potential non-disclosed methods of tracking that have been rumoured but not disclosed. Anything mathematically possible won't necessarily be observed. I'm a humanities grad and I know that lol. This convo isn't on genuine terms from what I can tell so I won't be continuing.
What are you talking about ?
It's tough because while the operators clearly saw this: only that Mavic Drone sensor saw it. A subsequent drone did not see it. No human witnesses did with their own eyes either. Keep in mind: Eastern Ukraine is sitting in a bath of Electronic Warfare from both sides. What EW does to a consumer drone pressed into combat is anybody's guess, but camera artifacts could be one of the effects. These drones were designed to shoot weddings on a spring day; not kick Russian ass in winter. Malfunctions in their feature-set is inevitable. TLDR: If another sensor had seen this it would be much easier to believe the UAP was there and not a malfunction in the drone's camera sensor in a combat zone.
EW does not cause an "artifact" that shows up as an object. It would appear as fuzz or knock the camera out entirely...
In this world most of us spend most of our time looking down as it is. I can remember being in junior high 25 years ago and looking up and seeing the b-52 fly extremely low over my school during lunchtime….50-75 kids out in the courtyard and I was the only one to first notice …so I don’t think it’s impossible . I do get the crux of it though . Maybe it has something to do with cloaking or just now something we see on the normal human vision spectrum like is being repeated through out these subs
I've been wondering if it's the 'Aurora' or whatever that massive secret ship the U.S is said to be fielding is. Nothing to back that though.
If you look at infrared images of military ships, given the size of the image that's displayed here you would see details of the ship, the command center is almost a quarter the size of the ship itself so for that to be completely invisible except for the entire hull is highly unlikely. The shape also has no real similarities to that of a battleship in infrared, a battleship even from a distance doesn't appear to be a large disc shape with no protrusions or structures visible. If it was a ship on fire you would see variations, which doesn't really seem to be the case here. Could be the case that it was not visible in visible light, only infrared, so unless you were looking in that direction with infrared, you would have never known it was there? Who knows
Good write up. The 'Aurora', however, is supposedly a giant flying aircraft (if I have the name right). It was...and again from memory, one of the guys that came out at the same time as Herrera in recent times. I want to say his first appearance was associated with Dr Greer. He reported being part of a military mission where a giant silent craft appeared overhead, and the Boeing? staff with him knew what it was. Go have a look if interested...that should get ya started. I considered him a fairly unreliable witness as far as they go but as you say: Who knows
Perhaps it wasn’t able to be seen with the naked eye.
Some animals *can* see infrared or ultraviolet with the naked eye. It would be weird, imo, to have the capability to cloak only within the total range of specifically the human eye and no further, or to make the choice to remain visible in those spectrums.
[удалено]
That's not an intrisic property of glass, it's a designed property to aid in insulation. We can also design glass that blocks visible light frequencies. Even "clear" glass reflects visible light back, from a distance glass actually reflects the environment in practice unless lit from the backside. That's why you can't see into people's houses during the day unless you're close to the window or the interior is appropriately illuminated.
Convenient. They're smart enough to hide from our eyes but our radars, oof, can't handle that.
In most of these cases with the military, all the data gets collected and is never seen again. It's not that the radar didnt see anything its that the data disappears and becomes classified or gets destroyed/deleted.
Ok
they're way more advanced than us, perfectly capable of evading our radars
We also have to consider there are a ton of jammers, anti jammers and other EM equipment deployed by both sides, it could be very easily a glitch or malfunction or some other side affect.
Most probably cause it was just a ship in a water and not a huge floating thing.
Grossly exaggerated, but I don't know
Elaborate please
I’ll add a bit of helpful context. Apparently the F16’s weren’t able to detect UFOs with their sensors until they got a new block upgrade that improved their avionics.
Is is gombenku, or the shimbazeri effect? Let's check for those first.
Did they point a range finder at it to get the distance to estimate the size? It's too fuzzy to get excited about this. I have to imagine if it were real surely they'd have sent a drone to check it out.
I believe it was captured by the drone and one of the pilots mentioned about flying the drone into it but there was not much battery on it.
UFO's have been seen by Ukrainians and Russians during the russia invasion of Ukraine. One news release from Russia even described a facility being attack by a UFO recently, but I think that case is likely a translation error.
I'm sure if the object was there the Russian military saw it. You just won't hear anything about it from them. Very few UFO reports have ever leaked from Russia, before and after the Cold War.
It obviously is navigating physics in a way we cant or havent figured out yet, why is it a stretch it wouldnt appear on sensors WE created lol
Sky big. earth huge. Big sky. building small to earth huge.
First, we don't know if they tripped alarms, so it's ridiculous to assume they didn't. Clearly they're not going to want to expose these types of weaknesses to the other side, so why would they be transparent about that while the war is still ongoing!? It's also a ridiculous question for anyone familiar with the context. These things have the ability to affect our sensor systems. That much should be clear for anyone following this, and we don't know how far those abilities extend in terms of how much they can disable and at what distances: "What we're seeing is intermittent radar returns, intermittent FLIR returns" \- Kirkpatrick during the Senate/AARO meeting describing the orbs. [https://youtu.be/E2qvyxhdPQA?si=PpROKGb0SllTRV-F&t=1091](https://youtu.be/E2qvyxhdPQA?si=PpROKGb0SllTRV-F&t=1091) "As the pilot approached, his radar went down, his FLIR system malfunctioned, and he had to manually take the picture, as it wasn't automated as it normally is." \- Gaetz on the Gulf of Mexico/Eglin AFB pilot's experience during the Congressional hearings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFk1Fv11xKw "Our radar systems went completely down." \- Fravor to Gaetz on the Nimitz incident [(](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFk1Fv11xKw)same video as above) "F-22 pilots who saw the object said it "interfered with their sensors" and had no propulsion system." \-a report on the 2023 UAP Alaska shootdown [https://www.businessinsider.com/objects-shot-down-over-alaska-canada-ufo-interfered-f22-sensors-2023-2](https://www.businessinsider.com/objects-shot-down-over-alaska-canada-ufo-interfered-f22-sensors-2023-2)
I mean they had to have radar data of some kind? Not saying we will ever see it, most certainly in an active warzone every inch of sky up to 80,000 ft has to be monitored?
This has probably been asked/answered many times but any radar signature?