The 'Gimbal' UFO: Marik Claims "New Findings" Falsify Prosaic Explanations

[Mick West]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk_cuDp3pY4


I've not watched it in full, but it seems to be Marik summarizing his old arguments from years ago, and adding in the odd theories from @Zaine M. from https://www.metabunk.org/threads/some-refinements-to-the-gimbal-sim.12590/ (and maybe elsewhere)

 

[Zaine M.]

Mick,
You say you haven't watched Marik's video in full, yet you've already framed the entire thing as just "recycling old arguments" plus "odd theories from Zaine." That's not exactly starting from a position of good faith analysis. The core points aren't old or odd:

• The refined glare model requires an extra roll/derotation mechanism that has never been clearly demonstrated as necessary from the actual video footage.
• That same model fails a direct control test on the Go Fast video from the same flight (straight water path vs the physically correct curved path).
• Full triangulation and cloud motion analysis only closes properly at the close range (<10 NM) reported by the pilots, not at the distant glare range the model needs.

These aren't fringe additions. They're testable issues with the current sim and refinements. Dismissing them without addressing the specifics (especially the Go Fast failure and frustum roll from pitch) doesn't make the prosaic explanation stronger — it just avoids the hard parts.

Happy to discuss any of the actual technical points if you're willing to engage with them.

 

[Mick West]

But they are all thing actively being discussed here, not settled facts.

 

[Zaine M.]

You described my contributions as "odd theories" from the refinements thread, while claiming those points were "actively discussed."

They weren't.

I was the main (often only) person in that thread consistently posting detailed tests: frustum roll from aircraft pitch due to camera mounting, 1:1 bank derotation calculations, stitched cloud motion analysis, elevation tables, and the Go Fast control test from the same flight/same system.

You yourself identified the slight clockwise rotation issue in the first 22 seconds as one of the two main problems needing refinement. That's not an "odd theory" — that's something you highlighted and attempted to fix with tunable extra rotation.

You also replicated the exact "katana shape" with your feature tracking, which further supports the frustum/pitch effect.

If we're going to discuss facts, let's discuss the actual data: the lack of demonstrated need for the extra rotation mechanism, the Go Fast test failure, and why triangulation failed in your recreation.

 

[Mick West]

If we're going to discuss facts, let's discuss the actual data: the lack of demonstrated need for the extra rotation mechanism, the Go Fast test failure, and why triangulation failed in your recreation

I think those are more hypotheses than data. Triangulation, for example, rested on a heap of assumptions and seemed like something AI spat out without really understanding all the variables. Your continued insistence on its validity was, IIRC, what led to you getting suspended for a while. You arguing for something is not you demonstrating that thing. You actually have to get people skilled in the relevant things (i.e. not just Marik) to both understand what you are saying and agree with your conclusion to the extent that they can independently describe and verify them.

A panorama bending is no proof of anything.

 

[John J.]

That's not an "odd theory" — that's something you highlighted and attempted to fix with tunable extra rotation.

I think Mick used "odd" in the sense of "occasional", not "strange".

 

[Mick West]

I think Mick used "odd" in the sense of "occasional", not "strange".

I meant: strange, quirky, incomprehensible. Theories that look halfway reasonable, but are based on unstated complex assumptions. Once those assumptions come out, the theory just seems unsustainable. But it LOOKS good. Triangulation is a good example.

 

[TheCholla]

Theories that look halfway reasonable, but are based on unstated complex assumptions. Once those assumptions come out, the theory just seems unsustainable. But it LOOKS good. Triangulation is a good example.

Or the glare-from-a-distant-plane theory. To me it exactly fits this description you give.

 

[Mick West]

Or the glare-from-a-distant-plane theory. To me it exactly fits this description you give.

There are two theories, and it's a mistake to conflate them.

1) The Glare Theory - which I think is very well demonstrated, and does not rely on the distant plane theory.
2) The Distant Plane Theory - Where there's a set of possible traversals at a certain distance that make good physical sense for being a plane. I think it's demonstrated fairly well that those traversals exist, just not proven that that's the only possible candidate. This does depend on #1

Then there's a separate class of theories,

3) The Nearby Odd Flying Saucer Theory - of which there's a variety of interpretations based on distance and wind.

Other theories, like "a bug on the glass", "Venus", "The Atlas rocket", or "A giant distant flying saucer" exist, but have largely been abandoned as unworkable.

 

[TheCholla]

#3 should be "A nearby object tilting in the wind".

Your biased title makes it sound ridiculous. But it's still the one matching context and the range fouler report, so it has the merit of making less assumptions about the crew and instruments.

#1, "The glare theory", needs a refinement that is textbook what you say below. Unverifiable and not even matching what we expect on the video, if it was true. That's discussed in the other thread.

look halfway reasonable, but are based on unstated complex assumptions. Once those assumptions come out, the theory just seems unsustainable.

 

[Mick West]

#3 should be "A nearby object tilting in the wind".

Your biased title makes it sound ridiculous. But it's still the one matching context and the range fouler report, so it has the merit of making less assumptions about the crew and instruments.

Like a big balloon? Surely that's a subset of a broader "nearby object" theory? In all seriousness, perhaps we need a hierarchical taxonomy of theories? And then a ranked list?

And are you saying that a theory should get a high ranking if it matches what the pilots were reported as saying, even if it means they misunderstood what was on their screens? They, or rather Graves, said it changed direction, like a ping-pong ball - inconsistent with "tilting in the wind"

 

[Zaine M.]

Can you clarify something, Mick?

You say the glare theory is "very well demonstrated."

The theory requires an extra rotation mechanism (beyond normal pod elevation change and tracking).

You've previously acknowledged there is rotation present in the first ~22 seconds that needs explaining.

My question remains the same as it has for months, "What specific part of the actual footage demonstrates that this extra/second rotation mechanism is being used, as opposed to natural pod elevation change?"

This is still unanswered.

As a direct test, I ran both approaches on the Go Fast video from the same flight and same ATFLIR system. The refined formula produced a physically impossible straight water path, while the natural frustum + bank method produced the correct curved path.

What is "very well demonstrated?"

 

[Mick West]

What is "very well demonstrated?"

That the "object" is glare. You've seen my video. There's a huge weight of evidence. A LIZ noisy-data puzzle does not override all of that.

 

[Zaine M.]

There's a huge weight of evidence.

And you have changed your position since that video.

1. Its rotating when it is not meant to be, first 20 seconds, you agree with that.
2. The predictive Gimbal roll simulator, failed to identify the first bump,
3. Observable #3, It does not have to be an artifact of the camera, it could be the actual object rotating,
4. Observable #4 requires the pod to operate differently during the same event, sometimes, allegedly, it snaps back to centre - allowing it to drift again, other time, it does not allow for drift and holds the rotation.

So, please be specific, not "You watched my video", what is well demonstrated?

 

[TheCholla]

They, or rather Graves, said it changed direction, like a ping-pong ball - inconsistent with "tilting in the wind"

Passing under wind speed when going against the wind looks like a ping-pong ball on radar, where ground speed is shown. You're going one direction (against the wind) then suddenly the opposite (with the wind).

You're simply biased in how you interpret context, trying to frame everything as inconsistent.