Thread by @4Eridani

1/ UKRAINE UAP PAPER UPDATE

The Phantom does not seem to be insects, birds, aircraft, nor artillery.

What exactly could produce those ‘phantom’ streaks reported in the recent Ukrainian UAP Paper by Dr. Zhilyaev et al. ?

#ufotwitter #uaptwitter

2/ To replicate the observation a Canon 60D was used with 14mm f 2.0 Samyang lens - shooting HD video at 50 fps with 1/1000s in morning daylight. This was the technique outlined by the authors to me via email and mentioned in their paper.

3/ No objects were filmed that caused a motion blur matching the Phantom streaks with a 1/1000 s shutter speed. This included insects flying close to the lens as well as birds. Everything was clearly identifiable with clear details of wings, ect see below:

4/So, what could have made those blurred ‘phantom’ images? Dr. Zahleav’s colleagues criticized the paper for not identifying prosaic explanations. Dr. Loeb of the @GalileoProject1 suggests they are artillery shells, however given the shape of the ‘phantom’ this is not likely.

5/ Artillery rounds have an initial ‘muzzle’ velocity of about 700 to 800 m/s, which decreases to 300 to 400 m/s at apogee and impact. Even long range rocket-assisted shells only reach about 900m/s at initial velocity.

6/
A 60cm long 155mm shell would move about 80 cm in 1/1000 of a second as it leaves the barrel (see below, probably with a shutter speed about 1/1000, sadly no Exif data on the photo). The blurred shell would have a flat back and pointed tip, about twice the overall length:

7/ In mid-flight the shell would move more slowly, travelling 30cm in 1/1000 of a sec, so we’d see a roughly 1.5x elongated round clearly recognizable with well defined shape. Not a long blur. We would also see a flat tail and pointed tip indicating the shell’s shape.

8/
The images of the ‘phantom’ UAP do not look like this. They have rounded edges on both sides . Note the elongated shape 4x times the width of the object. The shape of the blur does not match any normally occurring flying object at any range. See slide below:

9/If you discard the disputed colorimetery range/distance assumptions and assume certain sizes for the object, then you can work backwards and calculate speed regardless of range/distance to object.

10/ This allows us to test the plausibility of different objects creating the phantom blur. From above we know the blur is 7 px wide and 30 px long, so a bird/insect/plane would need to travel approx. 4x its shape in 1/1000 of a second to produce a streak of the same proportion

11/ Here’s a chart, showing how fast each of the objects below would have to travel if they moved 4x their length in 1/1000 of a second.

12/ The speed required for objects to create such a long blur in only 1/1000 are too great for them to be considered plausible explanations for the phantom observations.

12/ While I agree that the initial paper had faults, the underlying observations should be confirmed and if possible replicated. There is a second paper (that the authors kindly shared privately) which explains the methods in more detail.

13/ One observation of a phantom detailed this second paper is dated August 24, 2018, long before there was any shelling near Kiev.