F-16 Pilot- Chris Lehto analyses Gimbal footage

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

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

gtoffo

Active Member
3 observations:

  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.
  2. the object does seem to be substantially bigger by the end of the video. We are getting closer to the object. This is consistent with point 1. A more counter clockwise trajectory would result in the object being closer at the end.
  3. Mick's analysis is based on an exact circle. While Chris considers that the angle of bank of the F-18 changes at some point (it increases the angle of bank). This is why in the video Mick you say his circle doesn't' seem a perfect circle. It deliberately isn't as the AOB is increased.
Question for Mick: given the fact you calculate such long distances isn't it impossible? The speed would be huge. Isn't that an indication there is some error in your calculations?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick's analysis is based on an exact circle. While Chris considers that the angle of bank of the F-18 changes at some point (it increases the angle of bank). This is why in the video Mick you say his circle doesn't' seem a perfect circle. It deliberately isn't as the AOB is increased.
Yeah, he seems to have hand drawn it, so I don't think that's it.
 

Harabeck

New Member
Question for Mick: given the fact you calculate such long distances isn't it impossible? The speed would be huge. Isn't that an indication there is some error in your calculations?
At a more shallow rate of turn, the lines are more parallel, and so the apparent speed of object is slower.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Question for Mick: given the fact you calculate such long distances isn't it impossible? The speed would be huge. Isn't that an indication there is some error in your calculations?
No, the huge distance is for an object that is NOT MOVING. A moving object would be even further away.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
No, the huge distance is for an object that is NOT MOVING. A moving object would be even further away.
I have your model open right now but I think I have missed something.

I can't see a point where all three lines converge as it would be necessary for a static object. There is no static solution I can find on your model.

What are the values for your proposed solution? What speed of the object and distance and what rate of turn you think is actually right?
 

TCarmickle

New Member
3 observations:

  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.
  2. the object does seem to be substantially bigger by the end of the video. We are getting closer to the object. This is consistent with point 1. A more counter clockwise trajectory would result in the object being closer at the end.
  3. Mick's analysis is based on an exact circle. While Chris considers that the angle of bank of the F-18 changes at some point (it increases the angle of bank). This is why in the video Mick you say his circle doesn't' seem a perfect circle. It deliberately isn't as the AOB is increased.
Question for Mick: given the fact you calculate such long distances isn't it impossible? The speed would be huge. Isn't that an indication there is some error in your calculations?
I don't think that fact that he can calculate a longer distance indicates anything about the speed of the object. Because if the object is near the points of intersection then the object could be moving slow, far from intersection it may be moving fast and if right at intersection not moving at all.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What are the values for your proposed solution? What speed of the object and distance and what rate of turn you think is actually right?
i think there's a wide range of possible solutions, but for me if the RoT is correct at around 1.5 to 1.7 then around 40+NM out, flying away (like along the red line)

To to get some sense of the increasing RoT, try at RoT about 1.55 and note where Intersect12 is, then try 1.65 and see Intersect13 is similar.

More detailed modeling could be done with the track of the bank angle (I think I extracted it earlier) but I don't have the time.
 

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.
 

Vizee

New Member
I'm working on a "Gimbal UFO Explorer" program in Unity to show the math and let people play with all the variables. It's already been really helpful in determining what's going on here. I'll start a new thread for further details on this.

Prelim results show that this could definitely be an object flying at similar speeds to a passenger jet. There are a few key terms that play into Lehto's analysis like "convergence" and "aspect break" that reveal what he thinks he's seeing in the video and if he's wrong, or even off by a little bit in his conclusions/assumptions then it's throwing off his math. I think it's very possible we're seeing a real example of the limitations a skilled pilot might encounter when analyzing a flight solely through a moving camera with a ~2 degree field of view.


GimbalUFOExplorer.PNG
 

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.
 

Daniel F

Member
Very nice analysis by Mick.
Christ ! He doesn’t hang about does he !

What is the significance of the standard 3 deg turn ?
He uses it to calculate the initial trajectory but then it changes due to a different bank angle. It’s not a true radius throughout as in Mick’s.

Is the manual not a guide as to an f18s maximum capability at a given speed and load ? A standard rate of turn seems more of an industry standard regardless of craft ?
I’m not sure I read that chart as what degrees of turn a pilot should do at any given speed. By their nature, they are performing dynamic movement dependant on a given situation.
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
Very nice analysis by Mick.
Christ ! He doesn’t hang about does he !

What is the significance of the standard 3 deg turn ?
He uses it to calculate the initial trajectory but then it changes due to a different bank angle. It’s not a true radius throughout as in Mick’s.

Is the manual not a guide as to an f18s maximum capability at a given speed and load ? A standard rate of turn seems more of an industry standard regardless of craft ?
I’m not sure I read that chart as what degrees of turn a pilot should do at any given speed. By their nature, they are performing dynamic movement dependant on a given situation.
He was an F/16 pilot perhaps that jet does a tighter standard turn than the F/18.

Different planes have physical limits of the turns they can do at certain banks based on altitude/speed etc.

Don't confuse bank angle with turn angle.
 

MetaRoo

New Member
I watched Mick's video last night and it was one of the most impressive pieces of work I've seen on Mick's channel.
 

Daniel F

Member
He was an F/16 pilot perhaps that jet does a tighter standard turn than the F/18.

Different planes have physical limits of the turns they can do at certain banks based on altitude/speed etc.

Don't confuse bank angle with turn angle.
That’s kind of what what I mean. This chart is possibly the safe working limits for an f18, rather than standard expected turn. A fighters turn at any given time is dependent on a variety of variables obviously. In this case, needed to get behind the gimbal object.
As Mick said, the critical point is how Chris works out the first position turn radius. He doesn’t explain beyond why it’s in a standard rate of turn. I’m presuming he looks at bank and speed and knows it’s a 3 deg. Then at point two he makes a new radius due to the bank changing as bank angle or speed directly affects the turn radius.
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
That’s kind of what what I mean. This chart is possibly the safe working limits for an f18, rather than standard expected turn. A fighters turn at any given time is dependent on a variety of variables obviously. In this case, needed to get behind the gimbal object.
As Mick said, the critical point is how Chris works out the first position turn radius. He doesn’t explain beyond why it’s in a standard rate of turn. I’m presuming he looks at bank and speed and knows it’s a 3 deg. Then at point two he makes a new radius due to the bank changing as bank angle or speed directly affects the turn radius.

No, we know from analysis of the artificial horizon marker on the footage the bank angle of the jet, knowing this bank angle gives us the turning circle.

Of course they could have turned faster if they banked more sharply or used more control surfaces, but the HUD shows a steady bank angle.

Given this bank angle and speed/altitude of the jet you can use the document to determine the turning circle.

Imagine trying to work out how much a car was turning, obviously impossible you only have speed, but if you have a video of the steering wheel with markers on it you could work it out with the specs of the car.
 

TCarmickle

New Member
I made a quick data sheet for some of the information in the gimbal video. I used GeoGebra to get the bank angles and the F18 turn capabilities sheet posted earlier in the discussion by Vizee to get the rate of turn using Mick Wests 350 value for true air speed (these values are obviously very approximate). Hopefully somebody can find this useful.

Turn Capabilities

F-18 Turn Capabilities.png
 

Attachments

  • Gimbal Data - Sheet1.pdf
    28.8 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:

FatPhil

Active Member
No, we know from analysis of the artificial horizon marker on the footage the bank angle of the jet, knowing this bank angle gives us the turning circle.

Of course they could have turned faster if they banked more sharply or used more control surfaces, but the HUD shows a steady bank angle.

Given this bank angle and speed/altitude of the jet you can use the document to determine the turning circle.

Imagine trying to work out how much a car was turning, obviously impossible you only have speed, but if you have a video of the steering wheel with markers on it you could work it out with the specs of the car.

Are there any clouds distant enough that their parallax will be negligible? If so, then each time a screenful of clouds passed across a screen width, the camera and plane together will have turned one field of view, and we know both the field of view and camera's angle. Of course, using the camera angle twice in a calculation might double the unknowns, but if the calculations drop out just the right way, the unknowns might cancel out.
 

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.
 

jarlrmai

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.
It's already happening, estimating the bank angle from the artificial horizon is better than assuming 3 degrees. But it's all lost in the noise.

We are already at the point where we have videos from guys like sim pilot Alpha Check about the complete infallibility of US military systems, and videos from ex F16 pilots telling us the same systems present inaccurate numbers.

We also now have two UFO theory proponents telling us 2 different things about the same on screen number, TTSA and Chris Lehto.

I'm sure at the time of the TTSA release if we had questioned the RNG figure on Go Fast we would have been told "the systems don't make mistakes," now the same people are saying oh that figure, the one that basically says it's not low/fast, that's now wrong.

Chris Lehto, pilot says the videos are odd, all over UFO Twitter/Reddit, CW Lemoine says they don't show anything unusual, ignored.
 

Buckaroo

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!
One thing we shouldn't expect, though, is that he will ever say "I was wrong." Judging from his YouTube persona he strikes me as a guy who is incapable of admitting error.
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
One thing we shouldn't expect, though, is that he will ever say "I was wrong." Judging from his YouTube persona he strikes me as a guy who is incapable of admitting error.
Do you think he could admit he was wrong about having two things at different distances in focus at the same time? Mick presented a single photo of Yosemite that totally obliterated that ridiculous claim. After he said that (smugly even) he lost all credibility from my perspective.
 

Domzh

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.
thats because their spaceships are all manufactured by the same company: "Russel's Teapot Inc"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
The moment you go to a lot of effort to specifically call someone out for not talking to pilots like you, then ignore their polite requests to address that issue with you, a pilot, you lose much credence from me.

He still has time to address all this of course, I mean he could have posted here 1st.
 

Buckaroo

Member
Do you think he could admit he was wrong about having two things at different distances in focus at the same time? Mick presented a single photo of Yosemite that totally obliterated that ridiculous claim. After he said that he lost all credibility from my perspective.
Ha! We'll see, but my guess is that he ignores that point completely.
 

FatPhil

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!

In some ways, that would be progress. Once everything in the video has been declared "unreliable", we're effectively here: Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zdmqV2iDN8

Some might say we're there already, of course. ;-)
 

fartchitect

New Member
I was half into writing this comment, trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt because it was obvious to me that he was confusing terminology - confusing focal blur with motion blur. But then I watched again and at 13:00, while talking about the water being blurry, quote :"and you could say yea well because it's moving, right?"
So yeah, I tend to trust these guys and just because he made this mistake does not negate other interesting aspects he pointed out. But that was an epic fail. Like those MMA fighters that taunt and trash talk and the second they jump in the ring, BAM, they get Micked.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Are there any clouds distant enough that their parallax will be negligible? If so, then each time a screenful of clouds passed across a screen width, the camera and plane together will have turned one field of view, and we know both the field of view and camera's angle. Of course, using the camera angle twice in a calculation might double the unknowns, but if the calculations drop out just the right way, the unknowns might cancel out.
I think this is a valid approach, I had done it (and forgotten about it), here:

(THIS IS PROBABLY WRONG)
https://www.metabunk.org/goto/post?id=216629
The easiest way to get some perspective on this is to note that the clouds never get any closer, even when the jet is heading directly for them at 240 kts.


It's difficult to wrap my head around. There's are very narrow field of view (0.75°). The object and the jet are both moving, and probably not in straight lines

Starting at frame 0 the clouds take 67 frames, or 2.23 seconds to cross the field of view, it's at a bit of an angle so that about 0.75° in 2 seconds, or 0.375°/sec
Starting at frame 400 it takes 103
600 - 758

Total cloud movement is about 6° to 7°. total camera rotation is 60° (54 to -6). So the camera rotates about 10x the rate the object is moving relative to the clouds, angularly.

In the first 300 frames (10 seconds), the heading changes from 54° to 40°, 14 degrees, or 1.4° per second. about 4.28 minutes for a full turn.

Air speed is 241 Knots, 277mph, so in 10 seconds the jet would have travelled 0.77 miles.

If we take the target position as essentially fixed (if it's far away), then the heading change is the actual turn rate of the jet and so would travel a circle of circumference 277/60/60*360/1.4 = 19.8 miles

Adding this all together in a VERY simple GeoGebra sim with a non-moving UFO seems to indicate the UFO is around 12-15 miles away



Here the circle is the path of the jet. The green line is the original line of sight to the UFO. The pink line is the Line of sight to the UFO, so the angle between them is the angular movement of the clouds behind the UFO. When the Jet moves though 60° the cloud angle moves about 6°

Notice the speed of movement of the pink line, it starts out moving smoothly, but then slows down and essentially stops as the Jet Heading (black arrow) crosses over it. Just like in the video.

This is making some gross simplifications about the turn rate and path of the jet, but I reckon it's in the ballpark.

I don't have time to dig into this right now. But I not I'm using at FOV of 0.75, when I think it might actually be 0.35 (0.7 at 2x zoom). So probably worth revisiting.
 

BrianHoltz

New Member
It's interesting that the TTSA crowd -- who adamantly deny Gimbal could be a distant airliner -- seem uninterested in finding out the date, time, lat, long, and heading of the Gimbal F-18. Then they could show that there were no airliners anywhere near that vector. But maybe they're afraid of a replay of the 2014 Chilean Navy UFO, which the Internet solved in <72 hours after a failed 2-year Chilean military investigation.
 
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 162
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
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