Probed — UAP & UFO Disclosure Intelligence Hub

To appreciate how much more work was invested in our calculation compared to Mick’s superficial tweets, please check the full report. We really break down what we do with actual numbers. Our 2.26 km altitude comes from a standard planar camera pose reconstruction, with the site and terrain geometry independently checked in Google Earth and Google Maps. We systematically swept the unknown HFOV. The calibration score reaches its minimum at 65.6 degrees, giving 2.26 km, with the 5 percent near-minimum range spanning 60.4 to 71.0 degrees. The same solver reproduces your quoted 1.465 km at about 34.5 degrees. However, its calibration score is 0.744 compared with 0.308 for our preferred solution. Because lower scores indicate a better fit, the 1.465 km solution scores about 2.4 times worse than our preferred 2.26 km solution. Separately, we ran 3000 Monte Carlo perturbations of the image and map control points. These give a ground-plane speed of 3.37 km/s, with a 68 percent interval of 2.88 to 4.02 km/s. Most importantly, the measured motion does not depend on choosing 1.465 or 2.26 km. The object moves at about 801 px/s over 0.4004 s relative to the stabilized terrain. Changing the assumed HFOV does not change that measurement. Nor does the 2.26 km altitude produce our 3.37 km/s ground-plane result. It only affects the later conversion to a 3D physical speed for an object at an assumed altitude. The full derivation and uncertainty analysis are given in our paper. https://t.co/MN9WLLe4ia