FLIR Technician Discusses Navy videos and claims to refute Mick's claims

[Mick West]

Mick, that's not glare you see on the Concorde video, it's a big cloud of hot air. You can even see it in the normal visual footage of a concorde takeoff

It's fascinating that you persist with this nonsense, but it's really starting to just clutter up the discussion.

Look at this. Think about where everything is in 3D. Consider that what we see here is a plane traveling through air at over 200 mph we are looking down at it. We see two screen-aligned oval-shaped centered on the engines plus the heat from the plumes.

Let's make a 3D model, with one exhaust plume, spreading at an exaggerated rate. Remember 200mph plane, and much faster exhaust velocity.

[compare]

[/compare]

To get something obscuring the wing, you need a ridiculous and impossible spreading of hot gasses outwards.

Not only is such spread impossible, it wouldn't even look like this, as the exhaust gases would not stop in a nice neat cone.

Not only that, by the time the exhaust is about one plane length (usually less) behind the plane at cruise speed it has cooled down to ambient air temperature as evidenced by the fact that it can form contrails (which also show you just how much the exhaust actually spreads, which is not a lot)

So what you are suggesting is impossible. It's glare.

 

[Daniel F]

It's not nonsense. It's correct. That is the observable heat plume. If the resolution of that Concorde video wasnt so low we would probably see spiking at edge of engines. We keep using examples of different engines viewed at different distances with different systems to argue past each other. These don't prove anything of use. Concord needs a lot of ' heat' to get itself off the ground. Hence the giant ' plume ' at takeoff. That's not glare.

 

[Daniel F]

The sukhoi/fi18 footage is glare. Clearly visible. It's in constant rotation. Probably due to the fact we are zoomed right in on the engines and it's effectively overloading the sensors.

 

[Daniel F]

'To get something obscuring the wing, you need a ridiculous and impossible spreading of hot gasses outwards.' - It's not covering the wing In that footage.
The thermal image merely shows difference in heat. The engines and their immediate surrounding area. Particularly at takeoff on concord. They are running at much lower rate at altitude.

 

[Itsme]

Granted, in the Concorde case some glare/sensor blooming is involved. The horizontal spike may be caused by blooming, depending on the orientation and buildup of the image sensor. The gain settings of the IT camera might play a role here, too.
But you seem to think the whole dark circle is just caused by the engine nozzles. There is, however, a circular shaped cloud of hot air around the engines:

It's very hard to estimate the 3D shape and distance of the dark circles in the IR footage from just a 2d image that may be zoomed in as well. So stating it's physically impossible for them to exist based on your own estimations of the shape and distance of these cones is bit of a stretch.

Here's another example of an F16 using afterburners in visual and thermo:

Yes, there's glare/blooming around the afterburner flame, but it's a combination of this glare/blooming and the hot exhaust air we see in IR.
So I guess it's a combination of both.

 

[Heavytread]

In the FLIR images of jet engines, the 'glare' does not typically rotate independently except for the often used Sukhoi example but this jet has thrust vectoring, i.e. it can point the exhaust stream of its engines in different directions. My guess is that the glare in this example is the actual jet exhaust stream.

My guess is that most people taking video of jets aren't lugging around a 6 foot long, 400 pound targeting pod with complex internal de-rotation mechanisms when they want to take video of stuff.

Clearly there's no thrust vectoring going on this video:

We need to limit the discussion of observed rotation to only those cases where video was taken by a system with a de-rotation mechanism, where glare was observed, in specific cases where we would expect that de-rotation mechanism to be active-- i.e.: the pod is moving at an angle relative to the target that requires the system to gimbal. Those are naturally going to be hard to find.

Concerning your PSF remark: The clouds and the object in the video seem to be in focus, not blurred. This remark was already made by Chris and Dave.

This video has had an extreme sharpening filter applied to it, so of course the 'object' (and everything in the scene) appears to be in 'focus'.

 

[Inti]

Mick, that's not glare you see on the Concorde video, it's a big cloud of hot air. You can even see it in the normal visual footage of a concorde takeoff:


The shimmering of the jet engines in your first example is clearly more pronounced than that of the clouds.

I think you are mistaken and that Mick is correct that there are two elements here.

There is the hot exhaust plume streaming behind the engines which is irregular and fluttering along the edges.

Then there are the two much broader ovals of glare, which clear appear to be much wider than either the exhaust trail or the area immediately around the engines. These are different from the elongated plumes not only in width but in visual stability; their edges appear more steady and sharply defined,as well as being at least twice the diameter of the exhausts.

 

[Itsme]

I think you are mistaken and that Mick is correct that there are two elements here.

There is the hot exhaust plume streaming behind the engines which is irregular and fluttering along the edges.

Then there are the two much broader ovals of glare, which clear appear to be much wider than either the exhaust trail or the area immediately around the engines. These are different from the elongated plumes not only in width but in visual stability; their edges appear more steady and sharply defined,as well as being at least twice the diameter of the exhausts.

If you watch the full video you'll see that the edges of those black blobs are also not stable.
And notice how those long "exhaust plumes" suddenly disappear the moment the Concorde lifts off:

That's why I think these are mainly thermal residues on the runway left by the engines possibly mixed with some turbulent but already cooled jet exhaust.

But like Heavytread already wrote, searching the internet for FLIR footage that matches your pet theory is not going to work either way. We need Raytheon's input to really get to the bottom of this. This Concorde video will not bring us closer to the truth so discussing its details is pretty useless.

 

[Mick West]

But you seem to think the whole dark circle is just caused by the engine nozzles. There is, however, a circular shaped cloud of hot air around the engines:

That turbulent region you circle in the middle image is WELL behind the jet.

 

[LilWabbit]

If you watch the full video you'll see that the edges of those black blobs are also not stable.

The "edges" of the "blobs" are clearly stabler at the top of the two blobs/ovals, indicating a glare. The exhaust plumes affect the rest of the oval shape, especially at the bottom. Nobody is claiming hot air isn't showing in the IR image. It's a combination of effects; hot air + glare.

And notice how those long "exhaust plumes" suddenly disappear the moment the Concorde lifts off:

Actually the exhaust trails are not disappearing anywhere if you look carefully. They just become more faint upon takeoff as the heat is no longer concentrated between the nozzles and the runway.

The fainter exhaust plumes upon takeoff also form in a manner very consistent with what @markus and Mick have written earlier -- namely the plumes forming a narrow tail shooting out of the ovals instead of an incremental narrowing of the plume as demonstrated, in fact, by your F-16 afterburners image. It's precisely because of the absence of glare in your F-16 IR image why it demonstrates the normal behaviour of hot air shooting out of jet pipes.

In summary, what you consistently fail to/are avoiding to account for with your 'hot air blob' theory is:

(1) The sudden narrowing of the exhaust plumes in the Concorde footage, if indeed the oval "blobs" are hot air instead of glares.

(2) The consistently stabler and more sharply-defined top edge of the ovals as compared to the bottom edge affected by the exhaust trail.

 

[AmberRobot]

We know the image is saturated and that the exhaust trail is as black as the hotter part because the clipping is happening at a low enough brightness. So we can't know much about the true extent of any gas cloud near the engines in the presence of so much saturation.

 

[LilWabbit]

We know the image is saturated and that the exhaust trail is as black as the hotter part because the clipping is happening at a low enough brightness. So we can't know much about the true extent of any gas cloud near the engines in the presence of so much saturation.

And yet even in such a saturated IR image the sudden narrowing of the blob into an exhaust plume is indicative of something other than merely hot air blooming and gradually narrowing into a trail as should be expected and as shown in the F-16 image shown by @Itsme.

 

[Heavytread]

But like Heavytread already wrote, searching the internet for FLIR footage that matches your pet theory is not going to work either way. We need Raytheon's input to really get to the bottom of this. This Concorde video will not bring us closer to the truth so discussing its details is pretty useless.

Not really what I said.. I was pointing out that the fact we don't see rotation in every video where there's glare is not evidence that glare rotation doesn't happen because (a) most videos aren't taken by a camera system with a gimbal and de-rotation mechanism and (b) we have a couple of examples of videos taken by FA-18 ATFLIR pods that absolutely *do* exhibit rotation of the glare independent of the rest of the image.

 

[Itsme]

And yet even in such a saturated IR image the sudden narrowing of the blob into an exhaust plume is indicative of something other than merely hot air blooming and gradually narrowing into a trail as should be expected and as shown in the F-16 image shown by @Itsme.

It might be the normal temperature distribution when afterburners are engaged. You see the same effect in footage taken with professional FLIR equipment from Teledyne:

Note how not only the nozzle but even the inside of the tail fin gets very hot:

A Concorde has afterburners, too, so you'd expect a similar heat signature:

But enough about that Concorde footage...

 

[LilWabbit]

But enough about that Concorde footage...

No problem, we can happily dispense with the Concorde footage. But your response did not really address the valid points raised distinguishing the Concorde image (glare + exhaust trail) from the F-16 image (no glare, only exhaust trail).

The point being: There's a clear difference, under closer scrutiny, between the sharper-edged and tighter IR image of a glare formed around the nozzles, and the way exhaust plumes form rougher blobs at the nozzle after which they gradually narrow into trails.

 

[Itsme]

Not really what I said.. I was pointing out that the fact we don't see rotation in every video where there's glare is not evidence that glare rotation doesn't happen because (a) most videos aren't taken by a camera system with a gimbal and de-rotation mechanism and (b) we have a couple of examples of videos taken by FA-18 ATFLIR pods that absolutely *do* exhibit rotation of the glare independent of the rest of the image.

You mean the vague background noise rotation you can see all over the image? That is completely in line with the optical setup of the ATFLIR, as explained here. It will occur at any relative rotation of the wind screen and the scene, or of a bright object within the scene. It is caused by a change in the wind screen scattering pattern.

We only have one other sample of the Gimbal rotation, the FLIR1 video. Here, the gimbal rotation occurs at 1-2 degrees L and takes about a second. We see the normal rotation of the background glare, but there is nothing unusual happening to the object itself.

The Gimbal object rotates intermittently at several angles of the ATFLIR LOS. A simultaneous rotation of the background glare is exactly what you would expect.

The shape of the object itself is consistent:

 

[Itsme]

In fact, the actual moment of Gimbal rotation has the same characteristics in the FLIR1 video as in the Gimbal video. It is accompanied by a sudden shift of the object to one side. Since the objects in Gimbal and FLIR1 are moving in opposite directions, the shifts and the points where they occur are mirrored, just like one would expect.

• In the FLIR1 video the object is moving from right to left and a leftward shift occurs just past the 0 degrees point, at 2 degrees left.
• In the Gimbal video the object is moving from left to right and a rightward shift occurs just past the 0 degrees point, at 4 degrees right.

In both cases the optical tracker succeeds in re-locking the object.

So in both videos the gimbal rotation is easily recognizable, quick, and it occurs right where you expect it to occur when looking up or down at a shallow angle: near the 0 degrees point.

 

[LilWabbit]

You mean the vague background noise rotation you can see all over the image?

No, he means the whole rest of the image not rotating in sync with the object as shown at 2:08-2:16 if you compare the object rotation with the stable cloud layer:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr1cfpos6vo


In Mick's response video to Falch he demonstrates how glare moves independently from the rest of the image, with or without the de-rotation stabilizing the horizon. In the above video de-rotation stabilizes the horizon. In other words, glare is a valid explanation and the whole background does not need to move with the glare as claimed by Falch.

 

[Itsme]

The hypothesis is not just 'rotating glare', but 'rotating glare arising from the rotating optics during the gimbal rotation'.

If Dave knows that the optics involved in the gimbal rotation cannot cause significant glare, but only the static optics and receivers behind the de-rotation device can, I can imagine he tries to explain it this way.

I was responding to the following remark by Heavytread:

"we have a couple of examples of videos taken by FA-18 ATFLIR pods that absolutely *do* exhibit rotation of the glare independent of the rest of the image."

The only examples I have seen are not confirmed footage from the Raytheon ATFLIR. They are just two pieces of video lifted from the internet. And in the Sukhoi example we see the 'glare' exhibiting a slight curve when it sweeps from one side to the other (see picture), which makes me think it is actually the exhaust of the Sukhoi's thrust vectoring jets we are looking at. As the 'glare' sweeps to one side, the jet turns to the other side. Thrust vectoring is used to make tighter turns, or to turn with less banking.

Anyhow, the Sukhoi is just some video posted by some Russian. We don't know where it comes from and what FLIR system was used to create it.

The only confirmed other Raytheon ATFLIR video we have is the FLIR1, and when we use that one as a reference the conclusion is that the object rotates independently from the gimbal rotation (see my previous post).

But I'd love to see someone from Raytheon joining this discussion.

 

[Agent K]

We only have one other sample of the Gimbal rotation, the FLIR1 video. Here, the gimbal rotation occurs at 1-2 degrees L and takes about a second. We see the normal rotation of the background glare, but there is nothing unusual happening to the object itself.

The FLIR1 object was viewed from the side, not from the back.

 

[markus]

The hypothesis is not just 'rotating glare', but 'rotating glare arising from the rotating optics during the gimbal rotation'.

No, the hypothesis is that there's glare arising from optical elements that come before the derotation device in the optical path. The only role the derotation has in this hypothesis is to realign the horizon in the image with the horizon out the window. Since the derotation mechanism is also an optical element it can contribute some glare of its own, but it's not required.

The only examples I have seen are not confirmed footage from the Raytheon ATFLIR. They are just two pieces of video lifted from the internet. And in the Sukhoi example we see the 'glare' exhibiting a slight curve when it sweeps from one side to the other (see picture), which makes me think it is actually the exhaust of the Sukhoi's thrust vectoring jets we are looking at.

The curve doesn't really imply anything. Glare can appear in any shape, no need for it to be a bunch of straight lines. With some extra care you can even draw arbitrary shapes:

https://image.made-in-china.com/2f0...l-Filter-Plastic-Laser-Focus-Grating-Lens.jpg

It won't look so nice here since the wavelength is not controlled. But there's no reason to expect the point-spread function factorizes, the way you're tacitly assuming.

The one thing we do know for a fact is that this is not thrust vectoring.

Anyhow, the Sukhoi is just some video posted by some Russian. We don't know where it comes from and what FLIR system was used to create it.

We may not know the exact provenance of the video but the symbology is consistent with ATFLIR. Either way it's clearly a military FLIR system with a derotation mechanism, which makes it at least a useful analogue for ATFLIR, and shows without a shadow of a doubt that glare rotates independently from the background, as it must from elementary optics principles and simple coordinate transformations.

 

[LilWabbit]

The hypothesis is not just 'rotating glare', but 'rotating glare arising from the rotating optics during the gimbal rotation'.

If Dave knows that the optics involved in the gimbal rotation cannot cause significant glare, but only the static optics and receivers behind the de-rotation device can, I can imagine he tries to explain it this way.

Did you watch Mick's response video?

Dave Falch didn't offer any argument or evidence demonstrating that Raytheon ATFLIR gimbal and de-rotation systems produce an optically unique glare effect that would essentially differ from what Mick demonstrated. Instead he made a somewhat universal claim that glare (while mocking Mick's British accent "gleeeh") would always rotate with the scene. A claim which Mick showed quickly to be false.

I was responding to the following remark by Heavytread:

"we have a couple of examples of videos taken by FA-18 ATFLIR pods that absolutely *do* exhibit rotation of the glare independent of the rest of the image."

The only examples I have seen are not confirmed footage from the Raytheon ATFLIR.

You're setting an impossible and unnecessary bar for acceptable optical evidence.

 

[Agent K]

Anyhow, the Sukhoi is just some video posted by some Russian. We don't know where it comes from and what FLIR system was used to create it.

It's from the VFA-31 cruise video that was removed from YouTube, but is still up on VK.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...su-22-being-shot-down-in-awesome-cruise-video

Don't click on the second link under the Update.

 

[LilWabbit]

Ok, so the gimbal rotation as cause of the rotating glare is out of the window now?

Who said any glare is out of the window? Quite the opposite. The rotating glare due to gimbal seems to fit the UAP footage rather nicely. Optical and sensor effects weren't ruled out as an explanation in the UAP report.

Then please explain why the gimbal glare rotates intermittently in fast discrete steps.

It's just following its algorithm for optimal image formation given the flight angles, paths and speeds relative to the object.

 

[Mauro]

Ok, so the gimbal rotation as cause of the rotating glare is out of the window now?
That's a new twist, and certainly not according to Mick's explanations so far.

My understanding of Mick's explanation was that there is glare, which by itself does not rotate even by rotating the camera, but which appears to rotate due to the de-rotation mirrors used to keep the horizon level in the video. So yes, the gimbal rotation is a cause of the rotating glare, albeit an indirect one. I agree the glare should come from optical elements upwards of the de-rotator, I cannot comment on how the glare comes to be or on the details of how it should look in IR viewed through an ATFLIR (I have no clue, really), but I'd bet on IR glare in those conditions to be a real possibility rather than an impossibility.

Edit: no need actually for the de-rotation mirrors, as explained by Mendel below

 

[Agent K]

I'd bet on IR glare in those conditions to be a real possibility rather than an impossibility.

It's more of a possibility than alien spaceships that defy the laws of physics.

 

[Itsme]

Nice to see you all trying to wriggle your way out.

You are falling for what I would call the `Debunker's Duck':

Debunker's Duck: "In know frogs cannot exist, so if it lays eggs, lives near the water, and makes a quacking sound I'll declare it's a duck, even if it's green and has no feathers."

I've given you my arguments why it's not a glare coinciding with the rotating gimbal, nor a glare as demonstrated in the two example videos:

1. The buildup op the ATFLIR optics.
2. The symmetry between FLIR1 and Gimbal that makes it possible to identify the Gimbal rotation moment.
3. The moments when the object rotates and the intermittent, discrete behavior of that rotation that does not coincide with the Gimbal rotation.

In other words: It's green and has no feathers... That's what you hear from Dave and Chris as well: `I've seen IR glare but it does not look anything like this.'

But this discussion that it's a duck anyhow because frogs cannot exist will persist, so I'll leave it at this

 

[Mendel]

My understanding of Mick's explanation was that there is glare, which by itself does not rotate even by rotating the camera, but which appears to rotate due to the de-rotation mirrors used to keep the horizon level in the video. So yes, the gimbal rotation is a cause of the rotating glare, albeit and indirect one.

My understanding is slightly different. I understand that part of the glare is caused by the atmosphere, that part is symmetric and circular. Then there is a a shaped glare on top of that caused by a "smudge" or similar on the front window of the optics (or a similar place).

On normal cameras, the sensor is always oriented the same way as the front of the optics, so the glare stays the same.
But in the ATFLIR pod, the sensor and the front window of the optics can rotate independently, as the front is on a gimbal. So as the front window which causes the shaped glare rotates with respect to the camera sensor, the shape of the glare must rotate as well. (I believe one way to cause this is for the jet with the camera to change its bank angle, as the derotation mechanism will compensate for that?)

A home experiment to confirm that would use a piece of glass with an asymmetric disturbance (maybe some oil wiped down in one direction), and then see if a camera on a tripod filming a scene with bright lights sees a shaped glare; and then rotate just the piece of glass to make the glare rotate.
Rotating this piece of glass will obviously not rotate the scene! And neither does the ATFLIR.

 

[FatPhil]

the front window which causes the shaped glare rotates with respect to the camera sensor

I wonder if it's simpler to view the effect, which you quite accurately describe, as being the window with the smear rotating with respect to the target object? Once you've got image rectification in the loop, it really doesn't matter what's going on inside the pod, the innards, were they perfect, could be spinning constantly like a helicoper and it would make very little difference to the image compared with the directional image distortion that the window has applied to the light from the target. (C.f. Mick's two-camera demonstration, it really is only the thumbprint on the front phone's lens that's required to get all the streaking necessary to support the simple hypothesis.)

Mick's done various smudge demonstrations in many videos now, it's clear who's evading the argument.

 

[Agent K]

(I believe one way to cause this is for the jet with the camera to change its bank angle, as the derotation mechanism will compensate for that?)

No need to compensate for that. That's why the horizon in the Gimbal video isn't horizontal. To the WSO it looks like an artificial horizon, since he and his display are banked.

 

[Ravi]

My understanding is slightly different. I understand that part of the glare is caused by the atmosphere, that part is symmetric and circular. Then there is a a shaped glare on top of that caused by a "smudge" or similar on the front window of the optics (or a similar place).

On normal cameras, the sensor is always oriented the same way as the front of the optics, so the glare stays the same.
But in the ATFLIR pod, the sensor and the front window of the optics can rotate independently, as the front is on a gimbal. So as the front window which causes the shaped glare rotates with respect to the camera sensor, the shape of the glare must rotate as well. (I believe one way to cause this is for the jet with the camera to change its bank angle, as the derotation mechanism will compensate for that?)

A home experiment to confirm that would use a piece of glass with an asymmetric disturbance (maybe some oil wiped down in one direction), and then see if a camera on a tripod filming a scene with bright lights sees a shaped glare; and then rotate just the piece of glass to make the glare rotate.
Rotating this piece of glass will obviously not rotate the scene! And neither does the ATFLIR.

Although I am completely agreeing with your comment above, I must correct though that some consumer cameras do rotate the lens element(s) when focussing/zooming. It is quite a bit related to the price tag.

The foreward scattered stray light we are seeing in the gimbal video, can easily be caused by too much rubbing of the surface (during maintenance/cleaning at the base) with a cloth. These cause micro-scratches and can be directional, causing the diffraction/grating effect.

 

[markus]

1. The buildup op the ATFLIR optics.

Any argument of the form "ATFLIR doesn't produce glare/glare doesn't rotate" is simply not plausible, regardless of how the words in it are permuted. Even if the idea of glare-free optics made sense at the outset (it doesn't, it's impossible), we have clear experimental evidence that it does produce glare and the glare rotates.

"It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."

2. The symmetry between FLIR1 and Gimbal that makes it possible to identify the Gimbal rotation moment.

I don't know what this means, sorry.

3. The moments when the object rotates and the intermittent, discrete behavior of that rotation that does not coincide with the Gimbal rotation.

You mean this?


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF6AI4OG8-I


What "does not coincide"?

 

[Agent K]

Nice to see you all trying to wriggle your way out.

You are falling for what I would call the `Debunker's Duck':

Debunker's Duck: "In know frogs cannot exist, so if it lays eggs, lives near the water, and makes a quacking sound I'll declare it's a duck, even if it's green and has no feathers."

Anomaly hunting: "The Montauk Monster is hairless, so it can't be a raccoon, therefore it's a cryptid."

 

[LilWabbit]

Nice to see you all trying to wriggle your way out.

'It can't be a glare because the laws of optics cease to exist in a military-grade and super-classified Raytheon ATFLIR system' is 'wriggling out'.

'Only if we can have Raytheon people join the discussion we can settle this' is wriggling out.

'Let's not discuss the Concorde blobs anymore because my initial claims that they're just hot air didn't stand up to scrutiny' is wriggling out.

Let's call the spade a spade.

You are falling for what I would call the `Debunker's Duck':

Or could it be that you've fallen in what is widely known as a 'rabbit hole':

It's an alien even when it looks and quacks like a glare.

 

[Jon Teets]

Is there something that would require a craft of an advanced civilization to just up and rotate like that? Is that the parsimonious move?

 

[Agent K]

It's from the VFA-31 cruise video that was removed from YouTube, but is still up on VK.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...su-22-being-shot-down-in-awesome-cruise-video

Don't click on the second link under the Update.

Various copies of that video crop the top where the SA indicator shows the pod staring forward, which is when gimbal lock happens.

 

[Mendel]

mean this?

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF6AI4OG8-I


What "does not coincide"?

This having been pointed out 2019 is amazing.

I did a metabunk forum search and found it just 2 months ago:

Seeing again this gimbal video, why is the whole image frame jumping slightly at the exact same time as the rotations happen? This indicates to me that: either the camera makes a move at the exact same time the object rotates three times, or the rotation of the object is caused by the gimbal opto-mechanics itself. The latter is of course what I think is happening.

Reading 8 posts forward from there gives me a video clip of Mick recreating the rotating glare at home (equipment: a smartphone and a camera or a second phone) and another clip showing the bumps.

There's them feathers, it's not a frog,

 

[Mendel]

There's them feathers, it's not a frog

To make this logic more explicit:

1) It is impossible that the faraway object is bumping the camera.
2) Therefore, the camera bumps are caused by a mechanism onboard the Navy jet. [ It has been theorized out elsewhere that fine tracking is done with movable mirrors, and the gimbal system activates when the mirror system exceeds a specific window.]
3) All UAP outline rotations are synchronous with camera bumps.
4) Therefore, it's very improbable that they don't have a common cause. [They have a common cause.]
5) Because 2) posits that the cause for the bumps is onboard the Navy jet, 4) implies that the cause for the UAP outline rotation is also onboard.

6) Therefore, the perceived rotation of the UAP in the GIMBAL video reflects a property of the observer (the Navy jet), and not a property of the observed object (the UAP).

7) There is no other property of the UAP in the GIMBAL video that makes it extraordinary.
8) By Occam's razor, that UAP is ordinary.

 

[Daniel F]

To make this logic more explicit:

1) It is impossible that the faraway object is bumping the camera.
2) Therefore, the camera bumps are caused by a mechanism onboard the Navy jet. [ It has been theorized out elsewhere that fine tracking is done with movable mirrors, and the gimbal system activates when the mirror system exceeds a specific window.]
3) All UAP outline rotations are synchronous with camera bumps.
4) Therefore, it's very improbable that they don't have a common cause. [They have a common cause.]
5) Because 2) posits that the cause for the bumps is onboard the Navy jet, 4) implies that the cause for the UAP outline rotation is also onboard.

6) Therefore, the perceived rotation of the UAP in the GIMBAL video reflects a property of the observer (the Navy jet), and not a property of the observed object (the UAP).

7) There is no other property of the UAP in the GIMBAL video that makes it extraordinary.
8) By Occam's razor, that UAP is ordinary.

Very well put. I did posit somewhere in another thread, that the bumps could be caused by good old turbulence. Haven't heard anyone else mention this but it seems, at least plausible to me.

 

[LilWabbit]

Well formulated, @Mendel.

3) All UAP outline rotations are synchronous with camera bumps.

This salient fact is not only remarkably evident for anyone watching and re-watching the footage.

It also, alone without supportive evidence, makes it obvious that the rotations are caused by an onboard system engaging in some kind of automated corrections in response to the bumps.

Which in turn almost entirely demystifies the video without requiring either further technical details of the system or a perfect identification of the object.

'Glare' puts the final nail in the coffin.