KGRA's Last Night on UFOTWITTER - The Science Behind FLIR Camera Technology

200 years ago, 2,000 years ago, this isn't going to work. She's picking up a massive object in this video. Ships that might be cloaked, I can sense them in my vicinity. So I guess I'm just very tuned in. Vulcan head honcho walks out, ear reveal. Yeah. The crowd goes, oh my god. Was to protect the secrets from the air force that were not out there in public. So what's up, everybody? We're back with another week of last night on UFO Twitter. This is the sixth episode, I think. So we're, we're, we're getting through them. And every week we've been having some good conversations with the folks from UFO Twitter. This week, we're talking with Dave Fulch. He's a friend of mine and Andy's. Andy Marciel is up here. I think we got to get him to actually, I'm going to bring in the Twitter folks in a sec, but I'll give a bit of background about Dave. Dave is actually a clear camera repair technician, professional in that field. And one of the things that has made him question a bunch of this FLIR footage that exhibits what we call UAPs is because he understands how FLIR camera technology works. And he understands, you know, what a conventional craft or a bird or what have you should look like. And he did come on one of our earlier spaces to chat for a bit. But I figured we could, you know, well, Andy had the idea that we could have a space specifically to debut a bunch of Dave's information, how he got into this, how he presents his FLIR analysis. And yeah, I'm just excited to get really in the weeds on this stuff. So just waiting for, and we do have Pastor Dale. Usually Pastor Dale opens up the show for us. So why don't we bring in the Twitter folks? Here they are. Dale, are you there? I'm here. All right. Dale, why don't you start off the show, as we always do, just with a bit of a message, some kind of positivity to get us through these next election days and all the chaos that seems to be surrounding us in the world today. Well, thank you, Darcy. I want to give Darcy a shout out before I do my little message. You know, I've asked several people to help me out and get an intro to my podcast. And I asked Darcy, and Darcy was the only one of all the people I asked. Maybe they got too busy. I'm not mad at them, you know, or just simply forgot. But, you know, I'm gonna give a shout out to Darcy. Darcy not only said he would do it, but he did it. And so, Darcy, I want to thank you for that. You're welcome. You know, when you read the words, I thank God for you in a text, you know you've made a difference in someone else's life. Those words were sent to me on Sunday. In it together. That's what we are. In it together. We're in this life together. The only way we succeed is if we are in it together. Last Friday, I stopped by a friend's house. I'd forgotten something and was picking it up. When my friend opened the door, I could see panic in his eyes. Then he went on to explain why. He said his banking information had been hacked from his computer, and the hackers had stolen $57,000 from his account. My friend told me his wife was on the phone with their bank's fraud department. But the more he talked, the more suspicious I became. He was told it was a team of Russian hackers who had already hit six other accounts. He was told it was an inside job, and they were closing in on the employee in the bank. And he was not to contact his bank directly, or it might tip the employee off. He was told their phones might be bugged, so they shouldn't use them. And finally, he was told how to stop the fraudulent transaction from going through. All he needed to do was to go to his bank and get a cashier's check and buy $57,000 worth of Bitcoin, which would cancel out the first transaction and thus stop the hackers from ripping him off. I told my friend it sounded like a scam. I asked him if he had gone to his bank, and he said yes. But later I learned that it was just to find out if he could get a cashier's check to buy Bitcoin with. He wouldn't listen to me, and I had to pick up my lunch, so reluctantly I left. I went back to my office and tried to eat my lunch, but alarm bells kept going off in my head. So I grabbed my car and went back over to my friend's house, determined to make him and his wife see what was going on, even if it cost me a friendship. Why? Because we are in it together. We're in this life together. That means that we have to look out for each other. When I got there, I sat them down and laid everything out. I told them that they weren't thinking straight because they were put in a panic when they were told that someone stole $57,000 from their account. I told them that hackers tried to isolate them by telling them to not use their phone or to talk to the bank. I told them no bank would tell them to pull out their life savings and buy Bitcoin to stop hackers. Finally, I had their attention. I told them to go to their bank immediately and have their passwords changed and tell the bank what was going on. Once they got to the bank, everything I said was confirmed. The bank told them that they had already heard of the scam. It seems others were not as lucky as they were. You know, I told you this story for two reasons. First, to warn you about scams like these. Never trust a phone number you're given online in regard to fraud prevention. Call your bank or Google the number. Never assume these people are who they claim to be. My friend did that and it almost cost him $57,000. You know, the other reason I told you the story is to remind you, we are in it together. Or as Darcy said to me recently, we have to look out for each other. And we do. You know, that reminds me of the old movie, Boys Town. In the movie, Father Flanagan asked Reuben Granger, one of the older boys, if carrying Howard was hard. The reason Reuben was carrying Howard was because Howard had polio. Reuben replied by saying, he ain't heavy, father. He's my brother. Just remember, when it comes to life, we are in it together. That means we need to look out for each other like Reuben looked out for Howard and like I looked out for my friend and his wife. Let me say it again. We are in it together. We are in this life together. Live together, die alone, as they say. And he ain't heavy. He's my brother. I love that line. Look, I mean, we do have to look out for each other. And not everybody that you meet is going to be your people. You know, an old friend said to me, oh, well, that person's not my people. And it kind of resonated with me a long time ago, because you're not going to get along with everybody. Not everybody's going to like you or love you. But when you find somebody that you can call a friend that likes you, or, you know, you could almost call family, chosen family that loves you, you know, you should try to look out for them. And I feel like that goes both ways. Usually, you try to surround yourself with people that look out for you, right? So thanks for those words, man. That was really impactful and cool. And it's great that you did that for your friend and saved his family a whole lot of hardship and loss of financial savings. The scams that are going on right now are just outrageous in terms of crypto, too. I'm involved in crypto, and I believe in it. And I think, unfortunately, the fiat money system that we all use is kind of on the way out. It's over leveraged. There's a lot of debt and stuff behind it. And it's not looking too good for the different types of dollars coming out of world economies. But crypto is kind of like this new start, this fresh start in terms of, like, storing value and accountability. But unfortunately, it's also the Wild West. And you get these really savvy scammers that don't want to work an honest day job. They rather go around tricking vulnerable people, like the elderly, who don't quite understand this technology, don't quite understand social engineering techniques or tactics. And they prey on people. They basically get them to relinquish their hard-earned money to them. So it's scary. It's a scary world we're living in. But there's some hope. And there's some cool things that people like Pastor Dale do to protect others. And I think we all should look out for each other when we know some really wack stuff might be happening behind the scenes. But look, let's talk to Dave Falch here. Dave, thanks so much for coming and joining the space today and being kind of the center point for the subject here, the science behind queer camera video. Can you tell us how you got into becoming a professional queer camera repair technician? Hey, Darcy. Thanks for having me. Sure. Can you hear me okay? Yeah. You sound like you're a little bit far away from the mic, but yeah. All right. Is this better? That's better. All right. It's actually kind of a strange story. It starts off with me growing up in St. Louis, going through high school, not really finding my way, going to college, getting an English degree because that was what I was good at in high school was English. So I just kind of picked that for a degree, not really having any kind of destination with it. So I was doing restaurant work. I was bartending, doing that kind of thing. And then I just kind of up and joined the Navy. So in doing that, I learned a lot of electronics, aviation electronics, I should say. And I just had a good talent with that. It was a good association for my skills. So I started getting involved in that kind of field, which was nothing what I was doing before. It was a completely different field, but it was something I was good at. So I started doing that and then moved down to Florida to be with my wife, essentially. We were just friends at the time, kind of a love story thing going on there, but we followed your heart. That's what you did, Dave. Yeah, I just picked up everything out of St. Louis and I left and I started working on phones, electronics with phones when they were flip phones. And then it was kind of like refurbishing them. And it was a brief gig. And then I started doing work in a cubicle farm for a government contractor that worked for the Navy. They did publications. It was very boring. So then I found a job doing aviation electronics like I was doing in the Navy. And every day I was so bored with this job, I would look for another job and I stumbled upon FLIR. And I was like, I remember FLIR from the Navy. I didn't do too much with it. I just talked to some guys in the shop and had a vague sense of what it was. But I applied for the job and went for the interview and they hired me. And the rest is history. So you, your education was nothing related to fixing electronics. Am I right? Yes, with the exception of the education that the Navy gave me. Okay. Like, what were you doing in the Navy? You were just getting your hands on that sort of like getting on ships and fixing their electronics on those or something? Well, when you join the Navy, you can either be undesignated, meaning you don't have a rate, or you can select a rate depending on how well you do on an ASVAB test. So you take this test before you go in and you get a score and they say, well, you scored well enough to do these different job functions, but not well enough to do these. They pretty much said I could do any job function. And they're kind of pushing me to do a nuclear kind of thing, but I didn't want to do that. I didn't want to be in a submarine. So I said, yeah, that sounds great, but I want to be like electronics. I just thought it would be a cool thing to do. And so after you go through boot camp, then they train you in an A school. So it gives you, it's like a general electronics training. And then after the A school, you go to a C school in which they give you a specific training for, you know, whatever aviation electronics platform you're working on. Like I was a mad tech, which is magnetic anomaly detector. So then you do cross training when you get into the Navy. Actually, you're at your duty station and you're working on the gear. That's when they do cross training and teach you other platforms to get you more versatile. So what does a mag tech do? What would be a magnetic detection that you'd be looking out for and what could cause that? So that's actually an anti-submarine warfare. What it does is if you've ever seen a P3, there's a magnetic, there's a boom that sticks out the back of a P3 or now they're P8s. But anyway, it detects deviations in the earth's magnetic field. And what you're looking at is for submarines. So we pretty much have the earth's magnetic field mapped, so to say. And then when you see a deviation, it'll record them like, well, it's a chart recorder. So anyway, it's a type of avionics that will show you the deviation. You're like, oh, okay, there's a submarine right here and you're flying over. So you're kind of doing a pattern over a certain area to see if you're detecting a submarine. So that's pretty much the essence of that. And you can do that also with helicopters in which you lower down a mag boom out of the helicopter via a winch and a cable and there's different variations of it. But you're detecting, well, yeah, just pretty much submarines. Interesting. Very cool. I guess, you know, you got the job because A, you're a smart guy. Anybody can tell that by the way that you go about analyzing your FLIR videos and just, you know, describing technology that you've worked with. And B, because you've got good experience working with electronics. So tell us a bit about the FLIR camera technology that you've been repairing. And before we start talking about like the UAP videos that you've done analysis of that are shot in FLIR tech, FLIR camera tech, can you tell us like what the basics are? Like what FLIR, how it was invented, if you know that? And I guess what are some novel features of the technology? Let's go back to the basics, I guess, to answer your latter question, is that a lot of people are confused on what is infrared and what was near infrared, what's night vision, that kind of stuff. Because all this terminology kind of gets overlapped and jumbled up. So if you look at the electromagnetic spectrum, the actual field of vision, like if you're looking at the vision as we see. Yeah, from like blue to purple, right? Yeah, it's like ultraviolet to red. It's like from 0.4 microns to 0.7 microns. And then you start to get into the near infrared or the low light, as some people call it. It's kind of what your cameras will see that are mounted outside for security cameras. Yeah. They amplify with those little LEDs that are around the camera, they amplify the light and they see this spectrum to like 0.75 to like maybe 1 point something, 1.5. And then you get into SWIR, which is shortwave infrared. That's also kind of an extension of the visible range. It's not quite thermal yet. You're still using daylight camera electronics and optics. Okay, so your doorbell camera or your basic nest cam that you've got mounted somewhere in your house, when low light environments trigger that camera, it's usually just recording in short infrared. Is that like a more accurate description? Like it's not full on clear, but it's like amplifying the light that's already there. Yes, but I wouldn't use shortwave because shortwave isn't really used that much. Let's kind of stick to near infrared. Near. I think that's a good, yeah. Okay, near infrared. I thought I'd, you know, short, near, I should have said near, my bad. That's confusing. So yeah, then you get into, after the shortwave, you get into the midwave and longwave, which are what you would call like a thermal imaging device. So that is when there's typically cryogenically cooled infrared detector. It's a Dewar electronics module. It's going to be a different type of camera than what's typically used on a civilian basis. It's pretty much on a military and three-letter agency kind of apparatus. So, I mean, I'm sure they're available out there for civilian use, but they tend to be very expensive and you don't see a lot of people using them except for maybe on high-end boats. You might see one like, I did see one on a carnival cruise. They had a couple of them, but they were just kind of the lower range ones. And they're using that, what, to spot things in the water that might damage the cruise ship or something. Yeah, or, you know, to see other ships or to see the ports coming up or, you know, situational awareness, that kind of thing. Yeah, yeah, for sure. It's just, you know, stronger observations with a better, with a light spectrum camera that we can't even see it. It's better awareness of your surroundings. So let's skip forward a bit. You're working on camera systems that come off of things like a CBT plane, like a Customs and Border Patrol plane, or, you know, a Coast Guard boat or, you know, something from DHS. How much do those systems cost? If you are one of these agencies that needed to order a new one? Typically, I've seen them run. I'm just given a rough estimate is like about a million dollars. And the associated cables are, I don't know, $20,000 to $30,000. And then you have training that goes along with it. You don't have to fly to the service center or the manufacturer and, you know, get trained on that specific equipment. To become a FLIR camera operator? Correct. I mean, not all of us. It's just the people that work on the equipment, because then we can train people. They give out manuals to teach people how to do the actual operation of the system. But yeah, if you're doing the in-depth, it gets pretty technical. But if you do the in-depth repairs, then they need to have an authorized, you know, service center, or you need to have some kind of verification that you know how to work on the equipment. Interesting. So that's a lot of money. I was thinking like a FLIR camera might be, I don't know, $20,000, $30,000 or something, but a million? Holy crikey, that's... Well, it depends on the FLIR system in question. I mean, if you're looking at a long-range standoff, like something used for surveillance that you can't even see the aircraft up in the sky, then that's when we're talking the high money. But if you're looking for something like you're just going to mount on a helicopter that you might see on an episode of Cops, then that might be $20,000 or $30,000. That's what you want, what you're going to do. What about the FLIR camera on the mobile scope trucks? Those are the high-end ones, but they're mounted on the telescoping poles. So those are still going to be like the aircraft-mounted ones, but they're just used in a different platform in a different operation. And so you think that might be a WESCAM system, like an MX-15? I would say it's either a 15i or a 20 in regards to the jellyfish video, but I know for sure that the La Bruja, Rubber Duck, and the A-10 were FLIR systems, most likely a 380 HD. By WESCAM? No, no, no, by FLIR. FLIR system is now called Teledyne. Oh, Teledyne. Okay, they're actually the guys that invented the FLIR system, or...? They're the leaders as far as I'm concerned in the technology. I don't know the whole backstory, so I can't really say for sure, but that's kind of the assumption that I get. Interesting. So just back to something you were saying earlier, you know, people throw around infrared, they say night vision camera, or FLIR. So when we're looking at an object in a Gen 4 night vision camera, what light spectrum is that actually amplifying everything in? Are you talking about like a night vision kind of thing? Yeah, like the green and black and white little monoculars you usually can get. I think they say that Gen 4 is around like a $4,000 or $6,000 system these days. Yeah, so those I think are probably going to be like, you could either call them near infrared or night scope, or yeah, your low light, because I have one of those that my dad gave me, and I kind of tried it out, and it's actually to mount on a rifle, and I checked it out. And yeah, you're just amplifying the ambient light of the area, so you're not, it's not actually thermally, it's not a thermal imager. Right. And so when we get into the systems you're talking about, the systems that you repair professionally, those systems that are like a million bucks or hundreds of thousands of dollars, they're actually thermal detectors, like they're in a totally different ballpark. Yes, they use different type of optics as far as like windows and mirrors and magnification lenses, that kind of thing. It's completely different optics that you would see on a daylight. So Dave, I got a quick question. Yeah, go for it. What do you look for? I'm sorry, what was that, Darstin? Jump in anytime, sorry, because my Twitter is like glitching out, and I can't even see whose hands are up or whatever, so. All right, it's just a quick question, I just want to say, so when you use, when you view these videos, right, what is it that you look for? To basically determine whether something is odd or something is not conventional. Well, the first thing I look for is to try to determine what kind of detector we're looking at. You know, are we looking at what we discussed earlier with near-infrared? Are we looking at an actual government system? Is there symbology? Is it airborne? Is it mounted on a pole? Is it mounted on somebody's house? What are we looking at? So that's the first thing I look for. And second, I kind of look for just things that just stand out. It's kind of hard to explain, but if you work these systems a lot, you just notice certain things, they just stand out, like the linear travel of an aircraft or the erratic movement of a bird. It's just, it's kind of all-encompassing, just based kind of on experience, but not all. Does that make any sense? Yes, well, use, for example, the object that you captured that you were only able to see under infrared, if I'm not mistaken. At work, right? Yeah, that one was, I didn't even really, I wasn't the person that actually saw it to begin with, it was a coworker. And he was, he had a, like a WESCAM, I think it was an MX-15, he had it pointed outside. And he said, yeah, you need to come take a look at this ---- because it's, it's really strange. He has this deep voice, he's like, oh, it's really strange, you gotta come out here and look at this. So I came out and looked and it was like, I don't get it, it's not moving. He's like, yeah, that's the point. Because, you know, when you're looking at an aircraft, you'll see like the twinkling of the glare off the back of the jet engine, or you'll see it kind of moving in one direction, left or right. You rarely see it just sitting in one spot, you know, slowly fading out. So that's why I was like, I don't, I don't get that. What is that? And he's like, I don't know. I tried to hit it with the LRF, the laser rangefinder, and it didn't do anything. So he gave me the hand controller and I looked at it in the two different daylight cameras and there was nothing to be seen there when it was definitely in the range, the visible range of those two cameras. So that's why I said, I'm not getting this. It's not, this isn't anything I've seen before. And so that's what kind of piqued my interest in the whole thing was, it was just fascinating to me that this thing just sat there for 15 minutes in the sky, didn't move, didn't change thermal image at all, or thermal signature. And it was the weirdest thing I've ever seen. So basically you're saying it was invisible. Yeah, to daylight cameras. You could see it with a thermal imager, but you could not see it with the daylight cameras. And it was kind of geosynchronously locked, right? Yes. Because you'll see, I mean, even if you're looking at the moon, you just put it like on an inertial point or, you know, just put your system on the moon and you'll see the moon slowly move as things move in the universe. You'll see this big object moving very slowly across the sky. And you're like, okay, everything's pretty normal. You never see anything just sit in the sky for 10, 15 minutes doing nothing. It's just, unless it's like a drone, but this was far too big to be a drone or a blimp. I just recently got a FLIR video with a blimp I put on YouTube. It wasn't anything like a blimp. It was just the most unnatural eerie thing I've seen. Yeah, that is really cool. I want people to definitely head over to your YouTube. So if people want to follow his research and what he's been doing as an analyst of FLIR video publicly, his sign or his channel ID is at Dave, D-A-V-E, FALCH, F-A-L-C-H, 1038. And it's pretty cool. I was actually on it taking a look at a video you put up a month ago about the Chilean UAP FLIR video. This is, for people who don't know this video, it looks like this pill-shaped object, or almost like a donut in the sky. We're going to talk about food to describe UFOs since Dave Fravor went public in 2017, I guess. And it almost looks like this object is sitting geosynchronously locked, but then it's drawing out these vapor trails or these clouds in the sky behind it. And believe it or not, this is actually something people have reported before that UFOs can be seen sometimes almost creating their own fog cover, their own clouds. And what better place to stay hidden kind of right above our heads if you've got the ability to create cloud cover. But what do you think of that video, Dave? I was checking it out. You were talking about the way the camera operator was working, that the camera seemed to be in slave mode, which means the two different lenses on the camera are, you know, if one zooms in, the other one zooms in by default at the same rate. We're talking about the FLIR spectrum camera and the non-FLIR spectrum camera. Can I let you take it over from there? Yeah, I think what I was speculating was they were kind of moving in and out with the infrared camera and the EO camera wasn't slave to the infrared camera, meaning when you zoom into, like, let's say two times or four times magnification for the infrared camera, it's telling the EO or the daylight camera to catch up and saying, hey, you also need to be at this particular focal range or your zoom range and focal range. So it's saying, hey, you need to be at the same point. So we're seeing the same object at the same magnification. And that's one of the characteristics of FLIRs. That's what they do. But it didn't seem like they had that selected. So I was kind of thinking, you know, I'm thinking in prosaic explanations, what would make that big vapor trail? Because it kind of does look like a plane. I'm not going to lie. It does look like a plane from, and this is an older system. It looks like maybe a Star 2 or Star 3. It looks like they were just kind of having, oh, I forgot what it was. Has something to do with the engine where the engine kind of bursts. I forget the terminology for that. But like a like one of their wing turbines is basically like dying. Not dying, but it has like a stutter. It's I forgot the name of this. What year was that video captured? You know, I don't remember offhand. I just I have gone through so many videos. It's hard to retain the specifics. But it kind of looked to me like it was just kind of like a backfire of the jet engine. And, you know, maybe a couple of them. And that was my supposed hypothesis. But then the only kind of pseudo explanation to it all was from our old buddy, you know, and he was saying that he found a particular aircraft that matched the flight path and the destination and whatnot, but it was 90 miles away or 100 miles away at some point. And I said, that's an impossibility because the Fleers don't have that range. It's like trying to use a camcorder to see, you know, a couple of miles away down the street. It's not plausible or possible. It's just I was telling him this, but he's sticking to his theory. So I said, well, all right. You know, I agree with you that it does look like an aircraft, but you got the wrong aircraft if it is that. So it's kind of an unknown to me right now. OK, and, you know, since we're discussing Mick West, you did originally start working with him when you were looking at UAP videos in the public. Am I right? Can you kind of discuss a bit of your background with Mick West? Oh, yeah. You know, because I don't have anything really bad to say about him, except for his methodology. It's just we started he wanted me to do some experiments with the Fleer cameras and, you know, in my shop, which I did a few. And some people reached out to me, like some people from the FCU or some other random people I knew from social media, and they said, you might want to watch out for this guy. He's kind of got an agenda. And I said, well, I'll determine that as as it comes at me, which was kind of stupid in retrospect. But, yeah, you know, he he we kind of lost communication when he was telling me I didn't really know what I was talking about in regards to Fleer. And I said, well, you know, I've been working on these at that time. It might have been 12, 13 years. Now it's about 19 years. But I said, well, if that's how you view me, then there's really no point in carrying on this type of communication. And I'm sure it was not as pleasant as I just described. There was probably some unpleasantries exchanged, but not anything so much to where, you know, I don't block him because I still kind of want to see what he says, but I don't really hold him in any regard. That's fine. You know, we all know he's a debunker in the field of ufology. That's where he that's his lane. Let's let's say, you know, he he found a stick and he's sticking to it. That's fine. You know, there's people that that find a different lane and do their thing, too. And we do need people to debunk bad UFO videos or fake fake news, you know, so there is a time and place for all of that. And, you know, let's go back to some of your analysis. I don't know if you caught this, but have you been watching Sarah Gam? She was actually working on the UAP task force. And, you know, which is where David Grush was working. And she's come out publicly recently. She was on my friend Matt Ford's show, and she spoke there. She was on the my other friend, Andy McGrillon's UAP podcast. What do you think of Sarah? And did you catch some of her comments on the jellyfish UAP video? And that from what I gather, she was saying that this video was leaked, right? Meaning somebody had seen it. That was getting exposed to this UAP footage from within side intelligence defense community. They leaked it. It was an unauthorized leak. But they knew what that video was, is what she insinuated. And it was not like a real UAP. I do vaguely kind of remember that I've seen the video you're talking about. It was rather vague for any kind of assessment. But, you know, I did a video on that, of course, on my YouTube video, to which my big debunking of the debunk was a lot of people thought it was just a conglomeration of like balloons, like latex and mylar balloons. And so I'm kind of like a scientific method type of person where I like to compare, OK, let's see what it actually looks like with the equipment. So that's what I did with, you know, flares and also thermographers and that kind of thing. So I don't know if she has an idea of what that could be, then that's pretty interesting. I have no idea what it could be. It just it doesn't look like anything that's conventionally flown, you know, like a drone or something like that. I don't see any propulsion. I don't see anything other than the wind kind of taking it. It doesn't look like anything. It's very anomalous. I don't get it. Yeah. Wasn't it also changing like temperature? Yeah, that kind of thing. It was it was changing with the scene as it was going along. It was like an auto gain level that was going on. And it was kind of changing with that, which would be typical of, I don't know, maybe a certain type of balloon. But it was just I don't understand the tendrils and I don't understand why it didn't have the reflectability that the mylar balloons have or the almost invisibility that a latex balloon would have. Right. It didn't seem like it matched the description. I don't know. That's why I could only hypothesize it was some kind of DARPA project that maybe they have going on that I don't know about. Yeah, I remember you did mention that in analysis that it could even be some kind of like DARPA tech that, you know, the public doesn't know about because it's for defense purposes and you don't want your enemies to know about that. Right. But just interesting that she has made a point to comment on that. I've spoken to her. She's very nice. I don't she doesn't seem to be disingenuous about that at all. I think she does think that there are credible UAP videos out there. Just maybe this one was not which she considered to be, you know, something anomalous. But that's a possibility. I'm willing to accept that. Yeah. Let's talk about we're let's talk about the Tic Tac. Can we talk about that and and some of the things that Mick West has thrown at that and how you would debunk the debunk? So what kind of first of all, let's start off with the type of camera. If you could maybe, you know, how much how much is it worth? What kind of technology is that camera capable of or what kind of abilities does that camera have in terms of clear tech? OK, so I can give you a generality of that type. It would be a net clear, advanced targeting clear. So you would have that like mounted underneath the wing of an F-18 or some kind of fighter plane. And it's going to have a different type of rotation as a surveillance clear. So instead of having an azimuth left, right and an elevation up down, it's going to have more of like a roll to it as the aircraft rolls. And then it's going to have an up down. So it's going to be a little bit different in its capabilities. It's kind of a it's got it's like a built in gimbal. You're kind of saying to steady cam the footage as the plane rolls and stuff. Yeah, it's going to have it's going to have that. Typically, there's gyroscopes that assist in like a feedback system that will assist the pod to, you know, if you want to maintain a horizon or something like that, you can flip a switch and it's going to maintain a horizon. Meaning if you turn like to the left, it's still going to it'll compensate for that and it'll look at a horizon. So there is that kind of stuff. But as far as the tic-tac, I'm limited on what I can say on that. You might want to refer to like Chris Ledo, who, you know, the fighter pilot. He's good at doing the analysis on that. When we're talking about stuff like go fast or especially the gimbal, I can make more comments on that because the the movements and what I see in those latter two videos are stuff that I've never seen. And I told Chris when I was talking, I was like, when I first saw the gimbal, the object moving in the rotation, I gasped. I actually was I was like, what the high hell is it? You know, because being at the narrow field of view and it's it was so unnatural. It was like what I've seen out back with my own system. It was in fact, I think that's probably one of my favorites besides La Bruja. But it was fascinating. So tell me like why the motion of that object was so odd. Well, this is the long running argument between Mick and I that I since have just kind of given up on. But it's been going on for years that he is saying it's a flaring of the engine. That's kind of blooming out and masking the actual shape of the craft. Yeah, the shape of the aircraft itself. So I'm saying that's not how the near infrared or the I'm sorry, the narrow field of view works. You can still see the shape of the craft, maybe at like the wide field of view or maybe the medium. But when you're zoomed in, you are past that optics. It's like if you were looking at the moon and you put in a two times magnification, then a four times and an eight times magnification, there's differences in what you're going to see. You're kind of looking past a certain focal length and looking past the atmosphere. And you're zooming in on it. Again, it kind of comes down to experience. And I'm not an optical expert in this, but I'm just kind of relying this on experience. No, I see these things all the time coming out of NAS jacks. I'm watching jets go, come and go every day for however long, for years. I see this and I'm like, that doesn't match up. Even when I see airborne videos where they're following different aircrafts and they're zooming in, it doesn't match up as far as the thermal signature. And when this thing rotates to the left and has this kind of erratic movement, like it's banking to the left, but it doesn't bank to the left. It stays in the same position, but it looks like it's banking to the left. It almost like scrapes to the left. Like just, yeah, it should, if it, when it does that, it should change, not only thermal signature that you would be able to see the jet at that point, cause it's going to sharply bank to the left and the exhaust is going to move from, you're seeing it from behind to seeing it from the side. And you're seeing now the aircraft and the side, you know, jet exhaust. Yeah. The exhaust would shoot to the right. Yeah. And you don't see any of that. It doesn't change at all. I'm like, that doesn't make sense. It doesn't comprehend. So I don't have any answers. I don't say it's aliens. I don't say, I don't know. It just doesn't seem to be like a conventional craft is what you're saying. It shouldn't be like another F-18 or something. Exactly. Okay. Interesting. Um, I sat down with Seth show stack to talk about, I think the, the, um, Tic-Tac and the gimbal. And he was like kind of basic. He was basically debunking it by saying, oh, it's so easy to make a little peanut artifact show up in your camera tech these days. And I was like, excuse me? Like, how does that work? And I, I wanted to talk to Merrick about that. I hope one day I can. He's a, he's got a wealth of information on the systems that were used and, uh, you know, the radar information and all that stuff regarding the Tic-Tac. And I, I know he's had an open debate with, um, Mick West on his channel. So that was pretty cool. Um, but I'd like to, to sort of get his comments on other people that have tried to debunk them and why, you know, those debunks just don't work. Yeah, for sure. Dave, I got a quick question. What's your, um, what's your take on, on, um, them now saying that, or actually Dashi, who's the, who's that individual that we were told supposedly was coming out with some kind of debunking of Aguadilla footage, calling it a pelican, a bird? Uh, he's not calling it a bird. They didn't even say, they didn't even say it was like pelican, you know, I would hope that if they're going to call it a bird, they got to tell us the species, what, what slight like angle it was at and all this stuff. But from what I know, uh, they just say a bird, very generic in their description of the Aguadilla footage. Um, and it's two individuals. Uh, one of them was the former director for Pat, uh, Kirkpatrick of, uh, yeah. But the other one is, um, like a physicist that works for a university that was part of the, the NASA UAP panel debunk. Um, so yeah, look out for that. That'll be many months from now. But once that comes out, then I can talk a bit, a bit more about it. So do you agree with that, Dave? Now, what should you're talking about the Aguadilla 2013? No, no, the Aguadilla footage. Oh, the Aguadilla. See, the, the most plausible explanation would be the Mylar balloon, but because of the emissivity and the reflectability, it didn't seem to me like it was, um, especially when it hit the water and turned into two different things. I mean, come on. So I'm going to be honest when people, let's say you have this high title of, you know, professor of this or director of that. If you don't actually work on FLIR cameras, I don't care about your title because you don't even know the systems. Yeah. You don't know. It's like working on a Jaguar. You know, you could say, well, I'm, you know, I have a professor of this and that. If you don't actually work on the equipment, you don't really know what you're doing. What are you talking about? Yeah. You can't say the specificity about these systems. I hate to cut you off, but I have to punch out here from KGRA real quick. I'm just going to say, everybody, thanks for tuning in. Uh, head over to Twitter spaces. Uh, you can jump into the Twitter space and interact, speak with us. We're going to continue to go for a little bit longer, but, um, yeah. KGRA signing off. Thanks again for another episode. Go follow Dave on YouTube. And, uh, he goes by just at Dave Fulch on Twitter. Andy and why UAP discussion and, uh, observer of anomalous objects, uh, pastor Dale. We're going to get some more questions and stuff for you right after we've punched out here, but I'm going to say goodbye and end the stream with KGRA.