F-16 Pilot- Chris Lehto analyses Gimbal footage

Theferäl

New Member
What surprised me was that he didn't even attempt to debunk the debunk of the 'rotation' of the object even though that was the thing that seemed to get most people excited.
 

folly4

Member
Hi all,
latest vid from Chris Lehto, this time discussing Gimbal.
Source: https://youtu.be/Tyw4JA00AMc

At ~2:35...
"It's imagine processing, it's what it's using. It's range ambiguous... [Mimicking debunkers] 'That number is on there, that... for the GoFast video. The number...it says 4.3!'

"Yeah, but that number is not correct... Any pilot or operator of these things knows that you can't trust all these... all the information."

Well...if the data from the sensors can't always be trusted, and Chris Lehto says here, I think that would open up a big can of worms.
 

Daniel F

Member
At ~2:35...


Well...if the data from the sensors can't always be trusted, and Chris Lehto says here, I think that would open up a big can of worms.
Do you mean he is contradicting himself by using data on gimbal video ? He says the passive sensor can’t be trusted to calculate range to a target. The only data he uses on this vid is the banking angle and line of sight, which are accurate.
 

folly4

Member
Do you mean he is contradicting himself by using data on gimbal video ? He says the passive sensor can’t be trusted to calculate range to a target. The only data he uses on this vid is the banking angle and line of sight, which are accurate.

He just mentions this, in regard to GoFast, before he gets into his main argument.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
Pleasantly surprised to see him ignore the rotation as I've felt people on both 'sides' have been a little too hyperfocused on that facet of the video. It ultimately doesn't matter if it's the gimbal rotating or the object itself.

He makes a pretty compelling argument if the math checks out. It would be speculative, but I'd like to hear his thoughts on the presumed workflow that would have taken place to get the object in the sights of the camera to begin with. At the ranges he's estimating would accompanying sensors, like radar, be necessary to get the object on camera?
 

Daniel F

Member
Pleasantly surprised to see him ignore the rotation as I've felt people on both 'sides' have been a little too hyperfocused on that facet of the video. It ultimately doesn't matter if it's the gimbal rotating or the object itself.

He makes a pretty compelling argument if the math checks out. It would be speculative, but I'd like to hear his thoughts on the presumed workflow that would have taken place to get the object in the sights of the camera to begin with. At the ranges he's estimating would accompanying sensors, like radar, be necessary to get the object on camera?
I’ve forced myself to shut up about the rotation. Guilty as charged…
Its a fascinating video. I get the impression his knowledge is possibly beyond standard pilot ? I think I read he was an instructor of this stuff in last video.
He’s exactly what is needed. Someone with detailed knowledge of atflir. I’m sure Mick could get him on YouTube. He may have aimed a few digs but he seems a nice enough fella who’s willing to debate further.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Pleasantly surprised to see him ignore the rotation as I've felt people on both 'sides' have been a little too hyperfocused on that facet of the video. It ultimately doesn't matter if it's the gimbal rotating or the object itself.

He makes a pretty compelling argument if the math checks out. It would be speculative, but I'd like to hear his thoughts on the presumed workflow that would have taken place to get the object in the sights of the camera to begin with. At the ranges he's estimating would accompanying sensors, like radar, be necessary to get the object on camera?
Without the rotation what exactly is unusual about the GIMBAL video?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Without the rotation what exactly is unusual about the GIMBAL video?
From Chris's video, he thinks the black shape is the actual object. Hence he thinks it's actually rotating.

What he's not addressing is primarily the rotation of the light patterns in the sky at the same time - which indicates the rotation is an optical artifact.
 

Harabeck

New Member
I'm really happy to have input from an actual pilot on this subject, but I do feel it's relevant to point out that Chris seems to be coming at this with a conclusion already in mind. From the comments:
Sound Garden: What's your take on this supposed conversation between an AWACS aircaft and a flight group leader that has a supposed encounter with an UAP: https://i.4cdn.org/x/1622942034146.jpg The dialogue seems very legit. Is there anything in this document that would indicate this is just fabrication ?

Chris Lehto: Holy shit. It's Navy so the comm and slang is different but hardpoint 2 is the number two station (hardpoints hold weapons). We count right to left 1-9 on the Viper but it could could different. Probably is. All sounds legit. Gorilla group is anything bigger than a "heavy group" (4 contacts). A "Gorilla" package means several contacts in the same targeting space of roughly three miles. Then the "buddy' hovered over the right wing at 2'. Crazy. If true this is contact...
Even if he's right and these are very strange objects, he's still jumping straight to aliens. I really wish the media hadn't let this get so twisted.
 

Daniel F

Member
From Chris's video, he thinks the black shape is the actual object. Hence he thinks it's actually rotating.

What he's not addressing is primarily the rotation of the light patterns in the sky at the same time - which indicates the rotation is an optical artifact.
The artefacts in sky are a real issue, Mick you are right about that.
I know my hypothesis went down like a lead weather balloon recently regarding rotation but as I mentioned, there is something else rotating at same time as artefacts/glare - the actual f18. Not impossible for that to be cause.
it is difficult to unsee the rotating glare with artefacts in sky though.
He doesn’t mention that aspect at all here.
Fascinating analysis though.
 

Domzh

Active Member
I’ve forced myself to shut up about the rotation. Guilty as charged…
Its a fascinating video. I get the impression his knowledge is possibly beyond standard pilot ? I think I read he was an instructor of this stuff in last video.
He’s exactly what is needed. Someone with detailed knowledge of atflir. I’m sure Mick could get him on YouTube. He may have aimed a few digs but he seems a nice enough fella who’s willing to debate further.
i dont think he can have detailed knowledge about atflir as he was an f16 pilot iirc? only fa18 have atflir pods
 

Domzh

Active Member
The artefacts in sky are a real issue, Mick you are right about that.
Could these artifacts be explained by actual photons emitted by the object as a source? i mean its not just radiating in a straight line into the atflir pod but everywhere, in every direction in 3d space.

so when the object physically turns, it would make sense if the radiation pattern would change together with it, right?
 

Daniel F

Member
i dont think he can have detailed knowledge about atflir as he was an f16 pilot iirc? only fa18 have atflir pods
Not questioning you but where is that from ? I got the impression most airforces worldwide have been using atflirs for decades. If you watch manufacturer adverts they boast about the wide range of compatibility - listing all kinds of jets etc. Also he stated he’d been using over a decade I think.
 

Daniel F

Member
"ATFLIR presently is used only by the US Navyon the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the earlier F/A-18C/D and with Marine Corps F/A-18Cs when deployed onboard aircraft carriers."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ASQ-228_ATFLIR
Ah ok, I’m presuming that’s just a version of pod. FLIR would be the generic term. There are other models and makers with effectively the same technology inside. He mentioned his system was the same but with different on screen symbols. It had literally been rebranded.
 

Domzh

Active Member
atflir is a different setup.
its still an ir cam thats incorporated but atflir is a different pod. hence we can assume it has different mirrors, rotation mechanisms, etc. which is crucial if you wanna go head to head regarding the whole glare stuff.
 

folly4

Member
Ah ok, I’m presuming that’s just a version of pod. FLIR would be the generic term. There are other models and makers with effectively the same technology inside. He mentioned his system was the same but with different on screen symbols. It had literally been rebranded.

Can we be so confident it's just been "rebranded"? Could some of Lehto's errors be attributed to the fact the FLIR pods in F18s and F16s have some notable differences?
 

gtoffo

Active Member
I'm really happy to have input from an actual pilot on this subject, but I do feel it's relevant to point out that Chris seems to be coming at this with a conclusion already in mind. From the comments:

Even if he's right and these are very strange objects, he's still jumping straight to aliens. I really wish the media hadn't let this get so twisted.
what is the source of that image?!
 

Domzh

Active Member
i dont believe its glare anymore.

the chilean navy footage was referenced every now and then to show the similarities, but after going through their footage, you see different shapes of the plane including contrails.

if the object is moving fast and as described (which seams plausible) than we should see it from the side eventually and not from straight behind.

could it been a quadcopter? youtube is full of drone footage from santa catalina island and region. a quadcopter would match the silhouette, could explain the trajectory and rotation without changing its silhouette and these fuckers come in various sizes.

the elongated bottom part could be the gimbal camera.

it would also explain why it couldnt get a radar lock on it.

if we go close to zero point in this diagram, what speeds would the quadcopter need to match and do we know how far out in the sea we are at this moment?

might have even been a military uav from san clemente island?
 

MarcusH

New Member
2 thoughts:

1. He claims that it can't be at the further, 9nm position because an airliner can't move that fast, but this doesn't rule out it being other fighter planes being at this (or greater) distances. So we need to figure out how detailed the fastest fighter plane would look like at the distance corresponding to wherever you'd draw the line given that top speed.
Namnlös.png


2. If the analysis above is roughly correct in terms of orientation, then how does it make any sense that the target creates an IR glare from the exhaust, since the camera is looking at the target directly from the target's left? If the engines of the target are not pointing towards the camera, what is creating the glare?
i dont believe its glare anymore.

the chilean navy footage was referenced every now and then to show the similarities, but after going through their footage, you see different shapes of the plane including contrails.

if the object is moving fast and as described (which seams plausible) than we should see it from the side eventually and not from straight behind.

could it been a quadcopter? youtube is full of drone footage from santa catalina island and region. a quadcopter would match the silhouette, could explain the trajectory and rotation without changing its silhouette and these fuckers come in various sizes.

the elongated bottom part could be the gimbal camera.

it would also explain why it couldnt get a radar lock on it.

if we go close to zero point in this diagram, what speeds would the quadcopter need to match and do we know how far out in the sea we are at this moment?

might have even been a military uav from san clemente island?
As elements of the background rotate with the object I don't see what else this background rotation could be other than glare. The question is whether that rotating glare is caused by the gimbal rotating (in which case the shape of the object must all be glare) or whether a bright irregular object that is rotating on its own could cause a corresponding background glare to rotate.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
2 thoughts:

1. He claims that it can't be at the further, 9nm position because an airliner can't move that fast, but this doesn't rule out it being other fighter planes being at this (or greater) distances. So we need to figure out how detailed the fastest fighter plane would look like at the distance corresponding to wherever you'd draw the line given that top speed.
1.2 mach is fast even for a fighter. Going beyond that is unusual and expensive. Not ordinarily done. And would be on all radars IFF etc.

Hornet has a top speed of Mach 1.8 so you aren't going that much further even at top speed.

2. If the analysis above is roughly correct in terms of orientation, then how does it make any sense that the target creates an IR glare from the exhaust, since the camera is looking at the target directly from the target's left? If the engines of the target are not pointing towards the camera, what is creating the glare?
I would exclude this source for the glare. It can be glare but not from ordinary engines seen from the side. And even from the back Chris is saying it shouldn't glare so much and the shape is not consistent with this hypothesis at such ranges
 

gtoffo

Active Member
You would see the body/nose of the aircraft if seen from the side.

Directly form the back is the only way this would make some sense. And even like that I think you would see the body of the aircraft. Those pods are good.

Also: the only aircraft with centrally mounted jet engines are military jets. Airliners have wing mounted engines which are wide apart and would be distinguishable. And I don't think it is reasonable to believe the Navy can't IFF other US jets or airliners given the systems involved.
 

Domzh

Active Member
i pointed out in the tic tac thread that they were flying red team air defense training against the USMC red devils.

we dont have any confirmation yet but it could be possible Underwood is filming one of their hornets and doesnt get a datalink id because they dont show up as red teamy

just a thought though, the blob (if indeed a plane) looks like it as a single stabilizer and not a V one. F18 all have V ones.
 
Last edited:

Alphadunk

Active Member
If the camera is pointing at the tail of a Hornet do the proposed trajectories, including Underwood's left turn, still hold up? Would the jet in front of Underwood need to turn along the same angle to maintain the illusion?
 

Agent K

Senior Member
i pointed out in the tic tac thread that they were flying red team air defense training against the USMC red devils.

we dont have any confirmation yet but it could be possible Underwood is filming one of their hornets and doesnt get a datalink id because they dont show up as red teamy

just a thought though, the blob (if indeed a plane) looks like it as a single stabilizer and not a V one. F18 all have V ones.
The so-called tic tac was filmed ten years before Gimbal and Go Fast.
 

Daniel F

Member
As Ive stated before , its difficult to unseen the glare artefacts in tandem with objects but this could be classic confirmation bias. The f18 also starts rotating right at the same time.
1623101243404.png
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
They rotate not only at the same time, but with the same speed/acceleration and the same amount as the "object".
 

BrianHoltz

New Member
According to Lehto, the Gimbal UAP is ~6 miles away, subsonic, and the F-18 is closing on it. If so, why does the leaked video segment end before the F-18 gets closer? Why does the leaked video not include the period when contact ends? And why does the WSO dismiss the UAP as a "drone, bro" when, according to Lt. Graves, the pilots had all been so baffled and concerned about all the objects they had been seeing?

Similar questions re: GoFast, which conveniently ends right after one pilot asks "What is that?" The recorded cockpit chatter does not sound at all like what Graves claims was the squadron's mindset.

Also, how solid is the claim that the UAP is getting bigger (i.e. closer) during Gimbal? I don't see that -- except for the trivial one-time size change between hot=white and hot=black.
 

fartchitect

New Member
  1. the object is not at "constant speed". It seems to be slowing down. So I think Chris's analysis would need to use a line that is rotated counterclockwise a little bit.
Yeah, I've had the same thought, because you see the object start to move slower relative to the clouds as the movie plays. But I think it's because of the angle relative to the pod - it seems to slow down as the angle between the vectors of object/plane narrows, which should make sense. Maybe someone could correct me if I'm wrong.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
I was rather expecting Chris Lehto to come back saying: 'Aha, but you can't trust the banking angle shown on the screen. Any expert pilot knows that isn't reliable. ' I don't think he has (yet), but be prepared!

The UFO enthusiasts increasingly remind me of the flat-earthers. If you refute one claim, then without blushing they come up with some ad hoc excuse. If you're not careful you'll be knocked over by the rapidly moving goalposts.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
jarlrmai F-16 Pilot Chris Lehto's Interpretation of the GoFast footage [Focus, Parallax, Inaccurate Range] UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 195
Mick West Andrea Themely, Former Air Force Pilot, Breaks Down UFO Footage UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 11
RustamShah PIA pilot Reports Seeing UFO In Pakistan's Airspace General Discussion 6
Mick West The role of Canopy reflections in Pilot Accounts of UFOs UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 11
Mick West Inexperienced Pilot Recreating 9/11 Flight 77's Descending Turn into the Pentagon 9/11 77
TEEJ "Airline Pilot" at Climate Engineering Awareness Day - Carlow, Eire, 22nd August 2015 Contrails and Chemtrails 16
justanairlinepilot Pilot laser sightings Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Hoax: Climate Engineering Pilot Disclosure? Contrails and Chemtrails 76
Mick West Debunked: Alien Pilot The Extraordinary Plane, UFO In Transformation Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Balance Debunked: Pilot Forgets To Turn Off CHEMTRAILS while landing [Aerodynamic Contrail, Wake Vortex] Contrails and Chemtrails 109
JRBids (Another) secretly recorded video of a "chemtrail pilot" "confessing". Contrails and Chemtrails 5
TWCobra EasyJet 737 incident debunks Pilot for 9/11 truth V-G diagram video 9/11 325
George B New Chemtrail Video: Aeromexico Pilot asked about chemtrails. Necessary Evil? Contrails and Chemtrails 19
FreiZeitGeist Debate between Pilot Steven Kneussle and Mark McCandish on "The Truth denied" Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mattnik 'Passenger jet flies 800 kilometres without a pilot' New Scientist Contrails and Chemtrails 8
jhunsley Chris Letho's 2006 Stationary UFO Observed from Nottingham UFOs and Aliens 22
Dan Wilson Chris Beat Cancer: Survival Stories Health and Quackery 6
Mick West Debunked: The Great Culling - Paul Wittenberger and Chris Maple Contrails and Chemtrails 159

Related Articles

Top