With respect I think you're just moving the goalposts to make it easier for yourself to score. You set yourself against the most extreme alternative viewpoint, i.e. the video is irrefutable evidence of extraterrestrial technology and count yourself pleased when you're able to introduce some ambiguity to this hugely overambitious statement. Well I'm not.I think we may have different views on the burden and/or standard of proof appropriate in case like the Gimbal video. The original claim, by people like TTSA, is that the video shows phenomena not explicable by any known human technology: maybe alien, maybe not alien - but what else could it be?
To rebut this claim it is not necessary to prove definitively that the phenomena to be explained are due to glare (in combination with the rotation of the ATFLIR gimbal), just that it is possible. It isn't even strictly necessary to show that it is highly probable, though the fact that the main rotation of the 'object' coincides with motion of the pod past the 0 degrees point does make it inherently plausible that the rotation of the gimbal is involved. An even stronger argument, amounting almost to proof, would be that other random features of the image, distinct from the main features attributed to glare, rotate in synch with the 'glare'. There would be no earthly (or extraterrestrial) reason for such features to rotate in synch with a distant physical object, whereas if they, like the 'glare', are all artifacts of the camera that is just what we would expect. Many people say that they can see such rotation, and I think I can see it, but I may be deluding myself.
In short, the burden of proof rests on those who claim that the video shows something extraordinary, and the standard of proof is a high one. It is for the advocates of the 'extraordinary' interpretation to show that there is no reasonable alternative. I think they tacitly accept this, because they (including some contributors to this forum) seem very determined to rule the 'rotating glare' theory out.
I'm not interested in the TTSA's extreme claims or the viewpoints of fanboys on /aliens, I'm interested in the question 'what is that thing'. And when the answer to that question is jet engine glare and let's face it, it doesn't look like any of the examples presented, that leaves me feeling that the question remains unanswered, and doubting the credibility of those still clinging to that argument. Does that make sense?