F-16 Pilot- Chris Lehto analyses Gimbal footage

jarlrmai

Senior Member
One theory is that GO FAST and GIMBAL both show some possible scenarios where an operator might make an error or misinterpret the footage and are named after that, short clips that might be used for training or feedback to the pilots or engineers.

GIMBAL might show an artefact of the GIMBAL system in ATFLIR.
GO FAST might be a lesson in how parallax affects perception of speed.
 

jplaza

New Member
That's a really neat demonstration. This plus our Geogebra analyses are very consistent, we are making great progress here ! Now I'd like to understand how a Navy pilot can miss he is tracking another jet only 10-15Nm away.
This is something that should be checked with raw data, and not in a frame extracted from a video... but...

You can't see any details that may allow an identification with something known because the image displayed is saturated.
Now, whether this saturation is due to the sensor, or the display in a brightness/contrast configuration that does saturate the image, is something that might be checked if we had access to the actual raw data.
gimbal1.pnggimbal2.png
 

MclachlanM

Active Member
I think it will be interesting to see what happens, but relying on the pod simulation to emulate reality to that level should be done carefully.

I'm kind of interested in what blind spots the pod has. Reading around makes me think it's main use is for ground target designation for laser guided bombs. The AA mode must require you to fly in a certain way to give the pod visibility of targets at some aspects. Interesting to see what happens when you ask it to track a target that moves into a blind spot.

If the ATFLIR is slaved to the L&S it will continue to track as if there is nothing between it and the target, if it is autotracking then it simply loses the autotrack (at least in DCS). It can be obstructed by the aircraft itself which is why it's recommended that station 3 is kept empty if it's in use.

I completely agree that it's really an A/G type weapon. Everything about the way it's made is optimised for looking at the ground directly in front of it for a bombing run (the gimbal itself, the position on the plane, and the little dot that indicates position is at the top of page for 0 degrees). It also doesn't have any real use as an A/A weapon other than looking at things, whereas it's a necessary part of laser-guided bombing.

All of the procedures and manuals I've found seem to only mention A/A as an afterthought, which implies that training on the A/A mode isn't that extensive, explaining the surprise at seeing it rotate this much, rotation is rarely seen in A/G mode and usually not that noticeable though you can find some clips: Source: https://youtu.be/Yi9d8bstWsE?t=52
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
As far as I can tell the ATFLIR in A/A mode is mostly for visually identifying planes are what you think they are before you launch a missile under some rules of engagement it's a requirement.
 

MclachlanM

Active Member
Excellent work @MclachlanM
In the video the object clearly becomes significantly bigger at the end of the video compared to the beginning. In this simulations with an F-18 flying away are the relative distances reduced between the beginning and the end of the video accordingly in order to justify this increase in apparent size? Otherwise the flight profile does not match the observations.

I see the object start at 25x25 pixels at the beginning to 24x35 at the end. Quite an increase in apparent size especially in width (rotated).

I think that this type of analysis is starting to push the IR simulation in DCS much farther than it was built to go, still interesting to check though.

Untitled-1.jpg
Untitled-2.jpg

Initially since the range increases I wasn't hopeful to see an increase in the object size however when doing the numbers:

Simulation F-18:
object size - 3.6% increase
target bar size - 1.4% decrease

Video UFO:
object size - 14.2% increase
target bar size - 7.9% decrease

Remember DCS is most likely not accurately simulating the effects of glare, smudges on glass etc. which could account for the numbers being difference. But to me the fact that we see the object increase and the target bars decrease is much more important.

The more I read on the DCS ATFLIR system the more I am convinced that it is actually attempting to model the actual IR radiation: I've heard that developers have spend years on the ATFLIR update ensuring that the IR simulation is done correctly on some forums, also IR is super important when modelling heat-seeking missiles, flare counter measures etc. so it makes sense if they have attempted to get as close to the real thing as possible. The fact that the range increases and target bars encompassing the entire object get smaller makes sense, however the effect of positioning behind the object, looking directly down the nozzle and increasing the bright IR size is astonishing to me.
 

markus

Member
The more I read on the DCS ATFLIR system the more I am convinced that it is actually attempting to model the actual IR radiation: I've heard that developers have spend years on the ATFLIR update ensuring that the IR simulation is done correctly on some forums, also IR is super important when modelling heat-seeking missiles, flare counter measures etc. so it makes sense if they have attempted to get as close to the real thing as possible. The fact that the range increases and target bars encompassing the entire object get smaller makes sense, however the effect of positioning behind the object, looking directly down the nozzle and increasing the bright IR size is astonishing to me.
From what I've been reading, full IR modeling is going to be in an upcoming big update. It'll be interesting to revisit these results then.

When it comes to glare there's two things that affect its apparent size: the increase in the point response of the sensor as radiation intensity increases with inverse square distance, and the increase in the angular size of the extended source (the engines). The latter is likely unimportant; the engines appear pretty small at either range, which could account for a pixel or two but not much more. The former is likely nonlinear and hard to estimate, however, especially in the presence of uncontrollable factors like smudges or scratches.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The "gimbal lock outside rotation in limited movements" hypothesis is only suggested by the patent?
- how do we know the patent is related to ATFLIR?
- how do we know that ATFLIR actually implements the patent?
My understanding is that the inside mirrors are only used for fine tracking. Not for major tracking such as a large sweep across the bow. I would expect the ATFLIR head to rotate/move across the entire sweep and the small mirrors to do the fine track. Exactly like shown in DCS.
Where do you get that understanding?

The patents describe something that looks exactly like the ATFLIR system from what we know. The Gimbal roll near 0° is something we see actually happening in the FLIR1 video, and there are examples in other systems where it's explicitly displayed on the screen.

It also makes a whole ton of sense that the main axis rotation would be minimized. The forward pod weighs probably over 50 pounds. You see the vibration of the scene at the start of the large rotations in GIMBAL.
 

BrianHoltz

New Member
GoFast is thought to be from the same aircrew (and same flight) as Gimbal, right? Lt. Graves says the UAP were out there nearly every day, and the pilots were concerned. But GoFast is clearly a balloon (or some such wind-blown small object), and they don't seem concerned about it at all. And yet GoFast was chosen to be among the trinity of leaked Navy videos.

What are the odds that the UAPTF report will include sensor data corroborating the recorded exclamation that Gimbal's unseen companions were "all going against the wind"? We now know that these pilots can be confused by balloons, misunderstand gimbal rotation, disagree about Launch & Steer, and make snap judgements about "drone bro" that (allegedly!) get walked back by later (unreleased!) analyses. Given all this, I suspect we won't see any sensor corroboration of the "against the wind" exclamation.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
A lot of interesting analysis.

We are ignoring one of Lehto's points though: the size of the object can be calculated/approximated by looking at the apparent size of the IR picture.

By intersecting this information with the line of sight calculations we can exclude many options.
  • We can't be looking at something too far away or it would be huge.
  • If we are looking at something very close it would be unusually small and bright.
I don't have time now to do the actual calculations but they are pretty straight forward given the apparent size of the object and the camera FOV.


Where do you get that understanding?

The patents describe something that looks exactly like the ATFLIR system from what we know. The Gimbal roll near 0° is something we see actually happening in the FLIR1 video, and there are examples in other systems where it's explicitly displayed on the screen.

It also makes a whole ton of sense that the main axis rotation would be minimized. The forward pod weighs probably over 50 pounds. You see the vibration of the scene at the start of the large rotations in GIMBAL.
It's the most simple and reasonable system. We are tracking objects at extreme range and need to smooth out a lot of noise (e.g. turbulence etc.). It would be impractical/impossible to do fine tracking with the main gimbal system. You need something precise and fast for precision tracking and something else for the main large tracking. I would assume the internal mirrors constantly work to track the object within less than +/-10% of the window FOV while any tracking beyond that or even if you get close to the edge of this limit the main gimbal would recenter.

You can't have the system use internal mirrors to track up to the edge of the window FOV. Or you might easily get a movement that makes you break lock. It just doesn't make sense.

During a wide sweep such as the one in the video I would expect the external gimbal to do most of the tracking as shown in the DCS simulation. The internal mirrors would just compensate small movements and ensure fine/precision tracking.

Hence: we would expect the object to rotate during the entire video and not only in discrete points if the "glare" was caused by the external window.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
'We are ignoring one of Lehto's points though: the size of the object can be calculated/approximated by looking at the apparent size of the IR picture."

How? Describe this mathematically.
 

JMartJr

Active Member
We are ignoring one of Lehto's points though: the size of the object can be calculated/approximated by looking at the apparent size of the IR picture.
Assuming we are seeing the object, maybe -- but I don't think we are. It might be possible to calculate the "size" of the glare, which is a pretty nonsensical statement but would give an upper limit on the size of the object (it must be small enough to be hidden by the glare.)
 

MclachlanM

Active Member
Assuming we are seeing the object, maybe -- but I don't think we are. It might be possible to calculate the "size" of the glare, which is a pretty nonsensical statement but would give an upper limit on the size of the object (it must be small enough to be hidden by the glare.)
the size of the object can be calculated/approximated by looking at the apparent size of the IR picture.
How? Describe this mathematically.
It can't be done with only the numbers in the video, you need a range which is what Chris is disagreeing with.

With the stuff we've done in this thread you can get a rough size of the glare/object. I did this here using DCS; https://www.metabunk.org/threads/f-16-pilot-chris-lehto-analyses-gimbal-footage.11795/post-251516,
it is consistent with an FOV of appprox. 0.35 degrees (which adds up with what we know about the system).

I get a size in the order of 10-18 meters being generous with the error in range from my recreation (about the size of a jet).
 

gtoffo

Active Member
For the IR image to completely obscure an ordinary aircraft we would need to be looking at this mostly (or directly) from the back.

We can calculate the maximum distance by using the wingspan of a 737 (around 35 meters) as the maximum size of a reasonable object.

We can also calculate the distance if this was an f-18 (wingspan: 14 meters).

This will give us probable ranges in which to look for reasonable matches in trajectory if this was an airliner or a fighter.

Any solution outside of those ruff ranges would indicate something abnormal.

Another element to consider: the cloud parallax. We need a relative trajectory that results in the clouds moving to the right. Some of the proposed trajectories (another F-18 moving to the right) would result in the clouds moving in the other direction wouldn't they?

We need the target to be moving to the left relative to us if we want the clouds to be moving to the right.

I think putting together:
  • lines of bearing
  • cloud parallax
  • probable size for 737 or F-18 and therefore range.
We should easily identify a suitable trajectory. If we don't: we have a problem.
 
Last edited:

Cassi O

Active Member
If the engine is a bright IR light source, then it can be seen at any distance regardless of the objects size. The brighter the light, the bigger the glare.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
If the engine is a bright IR light source, then it can be seen at any distance regardless of the objects size. The brighter the light, the bigger the glare.
We have concluded that the IR signature of a jet engine can obscure the aircraft when seen directly from the back but does not expand that much beyond that.

So assuming it would loosely match the wingspan of the aircraft in size is reasonable.

So we should search for trajectories:
  1. compatible with the observed lines of bearing.
  2. (mostly) moving away from the observing F-18: we need to be looking almost straight into the engines to match the observed IR signature and not see the body. I'd say maximum +/-45° compared to the F-18's heading.
  3. moving left relative to the observing F-18: to match the cloud parallax (this probably excludes all positive angles in the constraint above leaving only 0° to -45°. )
  4. resulting in the object being closer at the end rather than the beginning: to match the significant increase in size
  5. at a distance compatible with the size of the IR signature matching the wingspan of a known target such as a large military tanker/737/fighter
  6. EXTRA: cloud parallax reduced (eliminated) by the end of the video indicating the headings roughly match or the object speed/trajectory changed?
Those are a lot of constraints. We should be able to get it if we use all of the info available.
I don't think anything less than a good bit of computational geometry is actually going to come up with the range/estimate of what we're seeing in the Gimbal video.

And that all comes back to the title of this thread. Does Chris Lehto absolutely know what this object is doing based on this footage. No freaking way. I can guarantee any calculations based on three lines and three headings isn't going to get you there. This thing could be stationary or traveling at 2000 m/s... it's all in some very touchy math and even if we can get some numbers there's going to be a range between balloon and supersonic.
I think a pilot's intuition given their experience will unconsciously put together the 5 points above so the pilots have probably a better idea of what we are looking at at first glance compared to us.

For example
 

Cassi O

Active Member
We have concluded that the IR signature of a jet engine can obscure the aircraft when seen directly from the back but does not expand that much beyond that.

So assuming it would loosely match the wingspan of the aircraft in size is reasonable.

I've put arrows pointing out two oncoming planes from a screen shot taken 1:24 into the BeyondClouds video.

1624200062255.png

I'm thinking the jet engines as an IR light source, like the navigation lights in the screen grab. With a two degree FOV, the FLIR would need to be pointed at just the right place and time to catch a distant plane.

Source: https://www.beyondclouds.ch/2017/04/05/vuelo-nocturno-the-magic-of-flying-at-night/

Since the object rotates, I don't believe it's the actual size and shape of the plane, what we see is an artifact of the mirrors and optics inside the FLIR.
 
Last edited:

gtoffo

Active Member
That is the smallest glare size that's compatible with the hypothesis, but it could be larger.
How much larger?

I'm not convinced what we are seeing is "glare from an engine". Just like it's not glare from an engine in the chilean UFO video. I've rewatched it a couple of times and you can clearly see it flickering and in certain moments where the exposure is changed you can see the full extent of the jet exhaust IR signature visible.

Screen Shot 2021-06-21 at 00.34.05.png

This tells me that what the Chilean video shows is the actual hot exhaust of the engines. Except you are just seeing the warmest part due to exposure adjustment being set to the lowest setting to get good contrast on the warmest part of the exhaust.

We can see other examples of jet seen from the back in Dave Falch's videos: Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trJnjCxClcM


You can see it doesn't look anything like those IR signatures.

What we are seeing here is different. It does not look like the heat signature of an exhaust. It does not "blink" or "flicker". it is extremely distinct and "solid". It could be extreme glare caused by some very bright IR source. But that's not what I would expect from an engine. So what is the source of that IR? The ATFLIR is clearly tracking the object so it would be setting exposure accordingly.

In any case. As the video above shows: the glare of the engines rarely covers the entire plane. Si it is improbable that it will be much larger than the original IR source.
 

MclachlanM

Active Member
You can see it doesn't look anything like those IR signatures.

It looks exactly like those IR signatures?

1624230675259.png1624230690700.png

You need to bear in mind we are seeing completely different equipment and that the settings/image may differ, but it is remarkably close for it to not be glare.

Edit: you can get a feel of how different settings in the ATFLIR may effect the image here - https://www.metabunk.org/threads/gimbal-id-of-a-possible-jet.11828/post-252110 , not sure which one you mean when you say exposure?
 
Last edited:

markus

Member
How much larger?
Arbitrarily so -- a bright enough IR source on the other side of the universe, with completely negligible angular extent, could still produce a glare of measurable size on a camera lens here. That is also one problem with the attempt to estimate distance to the object using the apparent size difference of the black shape: you don't know how much of the size difference is because the source appears brighter because it's closer (and thus resulting in a larger glare) and how much is because the angular size itself of the source is larger. You'd need it to be 100% the latter to come up with a useful estimate, but it's more likely to be mostly the former. Without access to the exact ATFLIR pod that was used, that exact day, in order to characterize its point-source response, we have basically no insight on the explanation for the change in apparent size of the black shape.

For example, say you're looking at a bright IR source such that (ignoring glare) it would appear exactly 1 pixel wide in your detector. You halve the distance to it, and now it would be 2 pixels wide in your detector. The diameter of the glare can only change by 1 pixel due to this effect. However, now the IR source appears 4 times brighter, which could increase the diameter of the glare well in excess of that 1 pixel. Without characterizing the camera in detail you can't extract that 1 pixel from the glare noise.
I'm not convinced what we are seeing is "glare from an engine". Just like it's not glare from an engine in the chilean UFO video. I've rewatched it a couple of times and you can clearly see it flickering
The Chilean navy video was shot from a fairly low altitude, and Dave Falch's videos were shot from the ground. It's not clear to me that the flickering has anything to do with the operation of the engines; it could just as well be due to atmospheric turbulence. Compare Falch's videos with the images here, for instance. The air higher up in the atmosphere is typically calmer so it's not surprising we don't see any of that in the gimbal video.

Note also that if what we're seeing in the Chilean navy case were in fact exhaust gases, we should see the exact same effect on the ground, during takeoff. If anything it'd be stronger (higher throttle setting). But you don't see that. On that basis it seems pretty conclusive that it's glare.
In any case. As the video above shows: the glare of the engines rarely covers the entire plane. Si it is improbable that it will be much larger than the original IR source.
The size of the original IR source is not what's relevant, its brightness is. As long as it's bright enough it can appear as large as it pleases.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
It looks exactly like those IR signatures?

1624230675259.png1624230690700.png

You need to bear in mind we are seeing completely different equipment and that the settings/image may differ, but it is remarkably close for it to not be glare.

Edit: you can get a feel of how different settings in the ATFLIR may effect the image here - https://www.metabunk.org/threads/gimbal-id-of-a-possible-jet.11828/post-252110 , not sure which one you mean when you say exposure?
By exposure I think I mean "level/gain" in terms of ATFLIR settings.

I agree the sytems are not the same and that is a big limit. But I would assume ATFLIR would be better than what Falch is using. Expecially in terms of autofocus/autogain etc.

Arbitrarily so -- a bright enough IR source on the other side of the universe, with completely negligible angular extent, could still produce a glare of measurable size on a camera lens here. That is also one problem with the attempt to estimate distance to the object using the apparent size difference of the black shape: you don't know how much of the size difference is because the source appears brighter because it's closer (and thus resulting in a larger glare) and how much is because the angular size itself of the source is larger. You'd need it to be 100% the latter to come up with a useful estimate, but it's more likely to be mostly the former. Without access to the exact ATFLIR pod that was used, that exact day, in order to characterize its point-source response, we have basically no insight on the explanation for the change in apparent size of the black shape.
Isn't brightness directly correlated to the angular extent?

And especially if the source is a traditional jet Engine: the sizes are pretty standard and can't vary that much in brightness.

Of course if this is a magic craft powered by dark energy we don't know the size and brightness :)

For example, say you're looking at a bright IR source such that (ignoring glare) it would appear exactly 1 pixel wide in your detector. You halve the distance to it, and now it would be 2 pixels wide in your detector. The diameter of the glare can only change by 1 pixel due to this effect. However, now the IR source appears 4 times brighter, which could increase the diameter of the glare well in excess of that 1 pixel. Without characterizing the camera in detail you can't extract that 1 pixel from the glare noise.

The Chilean navy video was shot from a fairly low altitude, and Dave Falch's videos were shot from the ground. It's not clear to me that the flickering has anything to do with the operation of the engines; it could just as well be due to atmospheric turbulence. Compare Falch's videos with the images here, for instance. The air higher up in the atmosphere is typically calmer so it's not surprising we don't see any of that in the gimbal video.
Yes this could be the reason. We do see the same flickering when watching "normal" images so I guess this is a reasonable explanation.

Note also that if what we're seeing in the Chilean navy case were in fact exhaust gases, we should see the exact same effect on the ground, during takeoff. If anything it'd be stronger (higher throttle setting). But you don't see that. On that basis it seems pretty conclusive that it's glare.
Those are high bypass engines (so a lof of "ambient" air being pushed. And I'm pretty sure the fact we don't see the full exhaust depends on the level/gain of the camera. How else do you explain the image I posted in my comment when the chilean navy gain/exposure is changed and the full exhaust appears?

The size of the original IR source is not what's relevant, its brightness is. As long as it's bright enough it can appear as large as it pleases.
Agree. But the brightness of a typical jet engine is (somewhat) known. In most cases we can see it doesn't extend beyond the wingspan (often it is smaller actually).
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm not convinced what we are seeing is "glare from an engine". Just like it's not glare from an engine in the chilean UFO video. I've rewatched it a couple of times and you can clearly see it flickering and in certain moments where the exposure is changed you can see the full extent of the jet exhaust IR signature visible.

Screen Shot 2021-06-21 at 00.34.05.png
That's motion blur from the camera FOV change. You see it in other places

2021-06-21_09-08-48.jpg
2021-06-21_09-09-17.jpg

And here it's seen in the clouds2021-06-21_09-10-37.jpg

And later again:
2021-06-21_09-11-46.jpg
 

MclachlanM

Active Member
But I would assume ATFLIR would be better than what Falch is using. Expecially in terms of autofocus/autogain etc.
If the footage is showing the auto level and gain then ALG will be boxed on the DDI, what we see is the WSO's own settings for level, gain and contrast. So not necessarily better than what Falch is using (also the plane is much further away).

Agree. But the brightness of a typical jet engine is (somewhat) known. In most cases we can see it doesn't extend beyond the wingspan (often it is smaller actually).
It doesn't have to extend beyond the wingspan as the level, gain and contrast settings can easily pick out the IR glare and make the rest of the plane blend in with the background.

From that video:
1624292590401.png1624292533757.png

Whatever settings Falch is using make the plane invisible and you can only see the glare. This is also true of the ATFLIR system.
 

MclachlanM

Active Member
That's motion blur from the camera FOV change. You see it in other places

I agree. Although IR can show exhaust but it looks a lot different:
1624294380587.png
1624294401448.png

I'm confused as to what the argument is here?
This is clearly a different effect than what we see in GIMBAL?
 

gtoffo

Active Member
If the footage is showing the auto level and gain then ALG will be boxed on the DDI, what we see is the WSO's own settings for level, gain and contrast. So not necessarily better than what Falch is using (also the plane is much further away).


It doesn't have to extend beyond the wingspan as the level, gain and contrast settings can easily pick out the IR glare and make the rest of the plane blend in with the background.

From that video:
1624292590401.png1624292533757.png

Whatever settings Falch is using make the plane invisible and you can only see the glare. This is also true of the ATFLIR system.
That image confirms my hypothesis: if you measure the width of the "glare" it approximates the wingspan/lenght of the original aircraft. It doesn't extend much beyond the actual fuselage of the aircraft. Of course it's an approximation. But a pretty good one. We know the error might be around 100% max? But from the videos I've seen so far not 5x or 10x. Jet engines are just not bright enough.

We can use it to approximate the distance for known plane sizes and to estimate upper/lower bounds.
I agree. Although IR can show exhaust but it looks a lot different:
1624294380587.png
That's the contrail (ice crystals forming as the exhaust freezes. It's interesting how it "appears out of nowhere" as warmer than the environment. I suppose the chemicals in the air would emit less IR than the organized H2O crystals in the contrail? Weird.

The "real" hot exhaust of the aircraft would be larger (heat will dissipate but can't just disappear) as proven by the fact that the ice contrail is warmer. But it doesn't seem to give off a lot of IR radiation and goes pretty close to the ambient air fast so it won't show up with all contrast/gain settings I guess?

I'm confused as to what the argument is here?
This is clearly a different effect than what we see in GIMBAL?
My point is we can use the size to approximate range.

If the "glare" is not very much we would see the fuselage/wings. If the glare is a lot (looking straight into it) we know it doesn't typically extend much further than the wingspan/lenght of the aicraft. And we know those parameters for typical air targets with jet engines.

Makes sense?
 

gtoffo

Active Member
That's motion blur from the camera FOV change. You see it in other places.

And here it's seen in the clouds2021-06-21_09-10-37.jpg
Doesn't look like motion blur though. It isn't a straight projection of the original image (like your cloud example). It has a shape that changes and expands and follows the expected exhaust don't you think?

And you also clearly see the entire scene changing brightness as the "exposure" is adjusted (look at the timestamp in my screenshot and around it).

It seems the lens change confuses the autoexposure for an instant.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Doesn't look like motion blur though. It isn't a straight projection of the original image (like your cloud example). It has a shape that changes and expands and follows the expected exhaust don't you think?
No, it's at the exact same angle as all the other (numerous) camera-change streaks. And there's a variety that don't look like simple motion blur. Probably because it's not perfectly linear motion.
2021-06-21_10-36-52.jpg

2021-06-21_10-40-47.jpg

And again the (main) fundamental flaw in your "hot air" theory is that it's showing glare in areas where it's simply impossible for hot air to get to. In the first shots there's a circular glow surrounding the engine, but the exhaust is angled to the right.
2021-06-21_10-39-45.jpg
 
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 180
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