the story that has monopolized PLAYERS OF SUN AND THE DAILY MAIL IS BASED ON A RECENT VIDEO far RATHER DOUBTFUL: WILL 'NEVER BE THE PROOF THAT THE UFOs exist?
Di Mattia Paolinelli
I am particularly pleased to say that we are dealing with an exclusive: while the majority Italian blogs you are chasing the news video, we are already here at Nautilus able to cope with the initial analysis of the video itself and the whole affair. And if to justify the delay with respect to international many of these blogs report the news making it back to March 1, I want to clarify that the truth is very different: if only because the video was uploaded on YouTube on February 25 .
But first things first bringing all the information you could find around the web.
would The video was shot in Siberia, a remote airport at la città di Yakutsk. Gli autori sarebbero gli stessi controllori di volo dello scalo siberiano. Ma cosa mostra il video? Più di mille parole possono le immagini, quindi ecco il filmato:
Come avete potuto vedere, le immagini partono con una ripresa dell’interno del centro di controllo aereo per poi concentrarsi sullo schermo del radar che segnala vari aeromobili in volo all’interno del proprio campo. Uno in particolare sembra viaggiare velocissimo rispetto agli altri. Non ha numero identificativo se non uno “0000” -sinonimo di identificativo non assegnato- e oltre alla velocità, particolarmente bizzarra è anche la sua rotta: the object seems to literally zigzagging over airspace.
It 's definitely a unidentified flying object and it is in the true sense of the word: we do not know what it is, if a missile or an aircraft, whether civilian or military, terrestrial or otherwise.
addition to video, to make extraordinary the news are the declarations of the controllers who have claimed to have tried to establish radio contact with the UFO. The attempt of the control tower did not successful, but the pilot of an Aeroflot flight, passing through the area crossed by the mysterious object, would report to controllers that he had heard something like a female voice meowing insistently.
According to the radar men of Yakutsk, the UFO was initially detected at an altitude of 64,895 feet (19,780 meters) above sea level, while the estimated speed was greater than 6000 mph (9800 kph).
The story goes like this and it is now time for its consideration. First rule, the search for sources and references accurate. The video has been uploaded on YouTube on 25 febbbraio, but the only one? And above all, is the first?
The answer is no. This shot had already appeared at least at the beginning of February (but we'll see how much older) and this makes it virtually impossible any attempt to reply crossed with other video or possible eyewitnesses may be collected by the local press or on internet forums . Having no precise coordinates were made on those occasions when you can not get to the facts maybe even to support the authenticity of the video.
But if we can not determine "when", even identify with certainty the "where" turns out to be a problem. There is talk of Siberia, is the name of the city of Yakutsk (white writing in the middle of your radar screen indicates the name of the city), but Siberia is one of the coldest places on the planet Earth, covered with snow for eight months to 'year. In the images of snow you have never seen even the shadow. Everything we have available are images of the inside of an airport control center. We can say that the video was shot in Russia only through the spoken and written in Cyrillic characters on the radar screen, but nothing more.
Sure, we trust the words of authors of air traffic controllers of the video, but I prefer to put off the issue and concentrate now on the movie in and of itself.
The video seems incontrovertible: a radar screen and an airplane that is moving at an unprecedented speed. And beyond the estimates of the controllers, just the visual comparison with the speed of the other aircraft is unforgiving: the other objects on the screen appear to be still.
But "seems" to stop or are actually standing still? On the video by clicking due schermate: ad esempio quelle “totali”di 0’.24”:
e di 2’.42”:
No, gli altri aerei si sono mossi, quindi il resto della schermata non è statica. E’ improbabile quindi l’ipotesi di trovarsi di fronte ad un editing video o a usi malandrini di photoshop. Ma basta questo a determinare l’autenticità del filmato? Riguardiamolo ancora.
Nei primi dieci secondi del video abbiamo una ripresa “panoramica” a control tower, while 0 '.11 "do we have? A cut immediately on what is presumably a radar screen. Why not take the radar screen in the "overview"? Why the detachment so doubt? We could be facing the union of two different video? Maybe one actually taken inside a control tower and one in front of any computer screen? The answer is obviously yes, but for now we take for good the possibility of us actually in front of a radar screen in a control tower and try to examine the data provided by air traffic controllers.
The position of the as well as speed-approximately-can be deduced from the radar screen, but where does the data on the initial altitude of the UFO? In essence, the radar is able to detect the altitude of an airplane? Yes and no.
what is commonly called "radar" is a complex apparatus, which uses different systems to detect the position of an object within an airspace. The radar systems of today (and then limit ourselves to the "detection systems") are basically composed by the primary radar and secondary radar radar primario è quello che riporta sullo schermo un semplice punto luminoso, il “blip”. Quella puntino rappresenta un qualunque oggetto solido che rimanda indietro il segnale partito da terra. Il radar secondario, detto anche transponder, è un sistema di “chiamata/risposta” tra segnale e aereo. Il segnale che parte da terra interroga un dispositivo dell’aereo che “risponde” rimandando indietro un segnale molto più accurato e preciso rispetto al blip del radar primario, che identifica l’aereo in volo con un codice unico e ci dà anche la sua altitudine.
Senza trasponder, per la quasi totalità dei radar primari è practically impossible to determine the altitude limits of the object that sends back the signal from the ground. And this is especially true as the object is far from the signal source. So, I repeat the question: how it was possible to estimate the altitude of the UFO if it was not equipped with transponders (if only because no identifier)?
There would also be a more particularly to consider, but is rather uncertain because of likely differences in the different systems within the ATC (Air Traffic Control) and then in the different softwares used to develop On-screen data tracking radar. In any case, the vast majority of detection systems distinguishes the source of the signals displayed on a screen differ depending on whether they are derived from primary radar alone, the sole or primary radar transponder and the transponder together. To identify the first type of data you are using a triangle, a circle for the second and the union of both a square.
may depend on different system than nell'ATC Russian-such-as that used in the U.S. or perhaps the low resolution of the video, but from the pictures you can not get this distinction "graphics" for the signals corresponding to different aircraft.
But it is actually objection of a minor who has quite the advantage of introducing another, more valid. Speaking of software in fact has implications well understood. A software-as-technical specialist can safely run on any computer and restore data on any screen, not necessarily in a control tower. It was the hypothesis already advanced than previously ex-operations per second doubts about 0:11 in the video. But I promised to make good for the fact of being inside a control tower, even after al secondo 0.11. Sarebbe possibile negare la genuinità del video con questa premessa?
Anche in questo caso la risposta è si e la chiave è sempre nel software che in tutti i sistemi radar moderni è in grado di realizzare “scenari” con finti traffici (ad esempio per esercitazioni). E non solo: al giorno d’oggi è anche possibile sovrapporre questi scenari ai dati del traffico reale. Il risultato è che nemmeno se avessimo la certezza (e non l’abbiamo).che lo schermo mostrato a partire dal secondo 0.11 è effettivamente quello di uno schermo radar all’interno di una torre di controllo potremmo affermare l’assoluta genuinità video.
But the survey end here? No way. We are still missing several considerations about the phantom flight controllers in Yakutsk. Let us return to the sources. From the video you can not get any notes issued by the SFOE and meow on this because, as I said, in addition to the video news is enriched by the statements of men Siberian radar. But where are these statements? To answer the question you have to go searching for the original news source.
This source seems a mirage, but you can find at least three addresses which is playing the classic viral Avalanche:
E 'above the third interest because it is a forum and the video is posted by a certain Magnit which moreover is the only one to give more precise references on the video. Li deducted from the movie and in particular from audio? Or maybe it was he who created the video? I asked via email, but I doubt receive a reply. Also because visiting all three sites immediately leap to the eye the dates of publication of the news and the oldest is precisely that of the third site, with the topic even open Magnit May 29, 2010. More than 1 March and 25 February more than ..
back to an earlier post similar to that of Magnit I have not been possible. If he was not the author of the video could probably tell at least one source even earlier, but until I receive response, we are in the field of hypotheses.
Yet there is also another very interesting given that emerges from the video itself. But not to Youtube, that of tomsk.fm
you think the same? At first glance, yes, but just look better to understand that there is a fundamental difference: quality. The resolution of this video is incomparably better than YouTube, as if we were in front of the original video to its first loaded.
In any case, com’è possibile vedere dal forum di tomsk.fm, di notizie su voci miagolanti non ce ne sono e sinceramente non so dire da dove sia saltato fuori questo particolare (è nel parlato del video? C'entra forse qualcosa 4chan?). D’altronde sul forum non c’è nemmeno alcun riferimento a fonti di qualsivoglia genere. In poche parole siamo di fronte ad un video che è possibile realizzare in una torre di controllo come davanti ad un qualunque pc. Un filmato tra l’altro girato da soggetti sconosciuti, in un momento imprecisato che mostra una presunta schermata radar che potrebbe essere anche il frutto di una simulazione.. Non proprio una grande prova a sostegno dell’esistenza degli extraterrestri.
Yet a news in the news is the article of "The Sun" dedicated to the case that demonstrates how not read up on the possibilities offered by technology today and being rough in the search for evidence can lead to unintentionally hilarious results or grotesque. Why? These are the declarations of "experts" interviewed by the Sun:
Defence experts say the mystery craft Could Be a covert missile flight.
Peter Felstead, of Jane's Defence Weekly, said: "It Could Be The test of a missile system. The Russians still haves the capability and the key technologies to build something of that speed."
But Peter leaves open the possibility that the UFO may be something other than a missile test.
He said: "For a test to happen in commercial airspace would be very odd."
UFO expert Nick Pope, who investigated mystery air threats for the Ministry of Defence, said: "This is a bizarre incident. Given that the UFO was tracked on radar, we've got some hard evidence that something extraordinary happened.
"If the alleged alien voice recorded Has Been, Should it be analysed by a codebreaker. "
seems to see a photocopy of the" mystery of the missile in the sky of California a few months ago (I mentioned here .) Truly unbelievable. And to think that would be enough to look at a competitor, the Daily Mail, to understand what it was committing terrible mistake. Why?
The look was not so much directed to 'article, the comments to Article from readers, or those who are not approached by the Sun I will mention only one, which tra l’altro dimostra quanto precedentemente affermato a proposito delle simulazioni sugli schermi radar:
Total Fake - There's no need for PhotoShop, I'm a former air traffic controller who has spent countless hours generating training scenarios on the T-4, which generates simulated digital secondary radar, the scenarios can be run over live traffic. On Christmas Eve's we'd gather the kids around a radar scope and generate a Santa Claus target. We'd crank his speed up 5,000-6,000 kias, he'd land at the airport....5 min later Santa Claus entered the control room with gifts for the kids....Meow!!
- Don, Wesley Chapel, US, 02/3/2011 17:47
So it was even possible stage for children approaching the airport of Santa Claus on his sleigh. What can I say: thank goodness there are readers ..
TI E 'like this post? Share it on Facebook, Twitter Cital OR IN YOUR BLOG!
0 comments:
Post a Comment