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

Meat5000

Member
Id tend to agree.
I believe that there is no doubt about the multirole use of the ATFLIR, but the problem is that the gimbal lock is more frequent in dogfights due to an evident target position. I don't think bumps are due to atmospheric turbulence. There is little variation of CAS. I believe they are more related to the image stabilization by the camera.
I cant seem to find it but someone mentioned that the bumps seem to coincide with the Gimbal Lock warning by 0.2s? As an engineer, my take on this would be simply that the gimbals are attempting to move but due to 2 axes having become aligned (gimbal lock) the result is an incorrect rotation away from the target. This is undesirable in the system due to the target being locked and so the system is returned to the initial state, the system uses a fourth axis or other mechanism to un-align the axes to return the movement to normal. This process would have repeatable timing over the same attempted movements.
I am not familiar with all the scenarios with regard to this particular system and its locking behaviour but I would suggest that if degrees of extremity are listed in the manual, its a good indication of the camera being used at its extremities when the lock warning is on screen i.e misuse. Engineers understand gimbal lock and how to avoid it so logic follows that in a highly advanced system, lock should be nearly impossible if the system is working as intended; both software and hardware can be employed to predict a lock and use a fourth axis or an alternate path of gimbal movement to move the load or gyro or whatever the gimbals are housing move as intended without axis alignment.
The 0.2s is likely predetermined closed loop system set in a way to avoid oscillation between free movement and target lock or movement and compensatory circuit. You dont want jitter on your targetting system.
I can not verify this based on a lack of specifics about the design of the circuits but I have designed control systems using 'Asynchronous servopositioning' with DC motors (the ones that spin like a clappers when you put the power on). These systems are the ones used in things like cannon turrets so I would summise that it could be a similar system in the trackers.
 

Daniel F

Member
Found one that references gimbal for the A10 which is apparently a more fully featured pod sim

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/233024-liteningii-is-not-atflir-in-dcs-hornet/

"like gimbal limit issues are not modelled aside in the A10C IIRC"

This probably means the pod in the hornet sims can rotate however it wants, so it's probably on the list somewhere (that quote event claims gimbal is "simple" but still not implemented.)
Source: https://youtu.be/uDD6DuDZ7Y8


this is a10 footage from Iraq. Visible rotation
2:00 visible rotation as tracking Apache. Also of interest to note is the strange mechanical judder, as if the propellor blades are affecting the passive track ?
Whether DCS get the exact mechanics of the gimbal pod correct is not that important in what I’m was referencing. I was noting that the visible rotation of the hud is in my opinion probably somewhat consistent with what pilots see in the cockpit. To mimic the exact mechanics seems a bit pointless.
 

Meat5000

Member
Found one that references gimbal for the A10 which is apparently a more fully featured pod sim

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/233024-liteningii-is-not-atflir-in-dcs-hornet/

"like gimbal limit issues are not modelled aside in the A10C IIRC"

This probably means the pod in the hornet sims can rotate however it wants, so it's probably on the list somewhere (that quote event claims gimbal is "simple" but still not implemented.)
Correct me if Im wrong but looking at the signatures of all the folk on that forum it appears to be all about some game or flight simulator? You cant get real world info from this.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Am I losing my mind? We say the REAL pod tries to not rotate on the major gimbal axis constantly, only rotating if it cant avoid it and these transfers to different rotations are visible due to the mechanical nature of the system, we get shown a DCS (GAME) video where it appears to as evidence that it does rotate like this.

I find some resources that show that the GAME does not fully simulate the pods mechanical quirks, yes the game camera will rotate the view if the pod rotates in the game it is a simulation to that point what I am saying is that the more subtle gimbal rotation avoidance stuff and bumps when different motors start up etc is not simulated, hence it is a simpler analogue.

This is what I am saying, you can't use the DCS pod's movements as a 1:1 comparison to the movements of the real pod.

Yet again I feel like I now have no idea what the original point of Daniel F is.
 

Daniel F

Member
Am I losing my mind? We say the REAL pod tries to not rotate on the major gimbal axis constantly, only rotating if it cant avoid it and these transfers to different rotations are visible due to the mechanical nature of the system, we get shown a DCS (GAME) video where it appears to as evidence that it does rotate like this.

I find some resources that show that the GAME does not fully simulate the pods mechanical quirks, yes the game camera will rotate the view if the pod rotates in the game it is a simulation to that point what I am saying is that the more subtle gimbal rotation avoidance stuff and bumps when different motors start up etc is not simulated, hence it is a simpler analogue.

This is what I am saying, you can't use the DCS pod's movements as a 1:1 comparison to the movements of the real pod.

Yet again I feel like I now have no idea what the original point of Daniel F is.
:) Dont worry Jarlrmai. I lost my mind long ago on this topic ! :)
 

Meat5000

Member
the bumps could be caused by good old turbulence. Haven’t heard anyone else mention this but it seems, at least plausible to me.
Indeed I do believe I read it in a part of a manual or patent someone posted somewhere around MB.O. It talks about compensating for heavy loads. This would literally mean Gforces and also the air resistance at 500MPH. Yes the forces would be huge and as the pod is not part of the main body there is a chance that the bumping is a direct result of this.
What is making people ignore this is the apparent linked behaviours of the readouts that suggest the bump is somehow resultant to some inner mechanical operation due the timings being rather consistent.
 

markus

Active Member
In my humble opinion, hubble is not comparable due to super long exposure times much fuller spectrum and lots and lots of post processing. The images are doctored to look impressive which actually features some glare.
The exposure time is long because the stars are faint. But if the stars are faint, so is the glare they produce, so the exposure time doesn't affect anything -- the point-spread function is determined by the optics alone.
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
The exposure time is long because the stars are faint. But if the stars are faint, so is the glare they produce, so the exposure time doesn't affect anything -- the point-spread function is determined by the optics alone.
The stars are still much brighter than the gas, which is the target in those photos, so they exhibit the wings and spikes of the PSF while the gas features, which have been properly exposed for, do not.
 

Meat5000

Member
the point-spread function is determined by the optics alone.
I dont imagine the actual optical sensor for the pod and hubble are anyway comparible simply because they have the IR tag.

"Unlike the other Hubble science instruments, the FGSs do not have pixel-based detectors. Instead, light from the guide star is measured using photomultiplier tubes " Source: Nasa.gov

I think perhaps Im missing the point though. If the point is to say, 'look, even Hubble with its super sophistication shows glare', then yes ok, I concede, this would be a useful comparison. However beyond this it cant show much more, I suggest.
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
I dont imagine the actual optical sensor for the pod and hubble are anyway comparible simply because they have the IR tag.

"Unlike the other Hubble science instruments, the FGSs do not have pixel-based detectors. Instead, light from the guide star is measured using photomultiplier tubes " Source: Nasa.gov

I think perhaps Im missing the point though. If the point is to say, 'look, even Hubble with its super sophistication shows glare', then yes ok, I concede, this would be a useful comparison. However beyond this it cant show much more, I suggest.
The FGS is only one instrument on Hubble and does work differently than the other imagers on board so bringing it up is a red herring. However, as you say, bringing up Hubble at all, other than to show what the potential wings of a saturated PSF look like, may also be a bit of a red herring.
 

markus

Active Member
The stars are still much brighter than the gas, which is the target in those photos, so they exhibit the wings and spikes of the PSF while the gas features, which have been properly exposed for, do not.
The claim was that glare does not show up in narrow field of view. Hard to get narrower than Hubble. No other comparison is intended.
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
The claim was that glare does not show up in narrow field of view. Hard to get narrower than Hubble. No other comparison is intended.
As someone familiar with optical systems, I find that a strange claim absent any details of the optical system. I would have to ask the claimant what exactly they mean because it seem something is lost without context.
 

markus

Active Member
As someone familiar with optical systems, I find that a strange claim absent any details of the optical system. I would have to ask the claimant what exactly they mean because it seem something is lost without context.
As far as I know, Falch has never been very clear about what he means. The clearest was during this interview in which he mentioned (I don't have the timecode at the moment, sorry, I can look for it later) that the field of view being narrow means e.g. stray sunlight won't get into the detector. But that's clearly not what anyone's talking about re gimbal.
 

Meat5000

Member
Did the original 'field of view' comment/suggestion come with any backing evidence or technical info beyond the statement? If not, perhaps, if there is nothing to be found in the manuals or patents, it might be a dead vector and not worth further thought.
Without some knowledge of the full working range of that system and appropriate visual information in the HUD to go on can we know the field of view and how 'narrow' it is? And is there specific information which might provide some point of occurence or susceptibility along the scale of narrowness?
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Did the original 'field of view' comment/suggestion come with any backing evidence or technical info beyond the statement? If not, perhaps, if there is nothing to be found in the manuals or patents, it might be a dead vector and not worth further thought.
Without some knowledge of the full working range of that system and appropriate visual information in the HUD to go on can we know the field of view and how 'narrow' it is? And is there specific information which might provide some point of occurence or susceptibility along the scale of narrowness?

The FoV of the ATFLIR system at the various zoom levels is well known. Have you read the original thread through?
 

Meat5000

Member
The FoV of the ATFLIR system at the various zoom levels is well known. Have you read the original thread through?
Ive tried! Theres a lot to take in at once for a single brain.
I guess my question is, according to Raytheon, what is the point of FoV at which one would expect to observe the glare? If its a well understood thing, this should be within the operating guidance of the manual just as the operatimg limits of the gimbal system are covered. If it isnt in the manual how can one establish scientifically if one 'should' be observing the effect or not beyond loose observation? Scientific debate over loose expectations doesnt seem prudent.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Ive tried! Theres a lot to take in at once for a single brain.
I guess my question is, according to Raytheon, what is the point of FoV at which one would expect to observe the glare? If its a well understood thing, this should be within the operating guidance of the manual just as the operatimg limits of the gimbal system are covered. If it isnt in the manual how can one establish scientifically if one 'should' be observing the effect or not beyond loose observation? Scientific debate over loose expectations doesnt seem prudent.
There's only one person saying that the FoV affects the glare as shown, maybe ask him.
 

MclachlanM

Active Member
I'm not too sure what you're getting at @Daniel F but I gather it is something to do with the DCS sim ruling out the rotation in Gimbal caused by the physical rotation of the ATFLIR. I've also been interested in Chris Lehto claiming we see less rotation in the video than the pod would require so I've tried to show that the rotation in the video does in fact agree with what we see in DCS.

Firstly I've detailed my DCS recreation in this thread; https://www.metabunk.org/threads/gi...ates-using-lines-of-bearing-and-or-dcs.11836/
Below is the synced video of the original ATFLIR, my recreation and the external view of the targeting pod:

The DDI in the recreation shows the ATFLIR rotation because I have set it to 1.0 zoom. When you match the 2.0 digital zoom of the original the border no longer appears to rotate as can be seen in the thread.

The benefit of seeing the rotation is that I can measure the angle of the targeting pod with time (roughly using a protractor on the screen) to show how much you would expect the glare to rotate if it were in 2x zoom:
1628889800069.png

Tero2021 uploaded a second part to his GIMBAL UAP analysis where he measures the angle of the UAP with time using MATLAB:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkRz8KG8CvI


Here is the angle of the ATFLIR in my DCS recreation superimposed on the actual angle of the UAP:
1628890027178.png

Now consider all the limitations of my recreation:
  1. DCS doesn't attempt to model things like friction, glare, defects or any other infidelities you would get with a physical targeting pod
  2. DCS doesn't have access to any classified materials so are working with the same materials we have access to as well as assumptions carried on from other targeting pods.
  3. DCS is modelling the F/A-18C Lot 20 built in 1998. The Gimbal video is filmed from a F/A-18F in 2015.
I'm amazed that the angle of the targeting pod in DCS and the angle of the UAP's rotation match so closely given that the simulation is very limited in accuracy, my recreation isn't perfect and has a lot of assumptions and I had just picked an almost random speed/range for the other aircraft.
Yes you could argue that they aren't spot on, or Chris Lehto could argue that the UAP doesn't rotate enough but the fact that the rotation happens with the same rates at the same time is far too much to be a coincidence.
 

Daniel F

Member
I'm not too sure what you're getting at @Daniel F but I gather it is something to do with the DCS sim ruling out the rotation in Gimbal caused by the physical rotation of the ATFLIR. I've also been interested in Chris Lehto claiming we see less rotation in the video than the pod would require so I've tried to show that the rotation in the video does in fact agree with what we see in DCS.

Firstly I've detailed my DCS recreation in this thread; https://www.metabunk.org/threads/gi...ates-using-lines-of-bearing-and-or-dcs.11836/
Below is the synced video of the original ATFLIR, my recreation and the external view of the targeting pod:

The DDI in the recreation shows the ATFLIR rotation because I have set it to 1.0 zoom. When you match the 2.0 digital zoom of the original the border no longer appears to rotate as can be seen in the thread.

The benefit of seeing the rotation is that I can measure the angle of the targeting pod with time (roughly using a protractor on the screen) to show how much you would expect the glare to rotate if it were in 2x zoom:
1628889800069.png

Tero2021 uploaded a second part to his GIMBAL UAP analysis where he measures the angle of the UAP with time using MATLAB:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkRz8KG8CvI


Here is the angle of the ATFLIR in my DCS recreation superimposed on the actual angle of the UAP:
1628890027178.png

Now consider all the limitations of my recreation:
  1. DCS doesn't attempt to model things like friction, glare, defects or any other infidelities you would get with a physical targeting pod
  2. DCS doesn't have access to any classified materials so are working with the same materials we have access to as well as assumptions carried on from other targeting pods.
  3. DCS is modelling the F/A-18C Lot 20 built in 1998. The Gimbal video is filmed from a F/A-18F in 2015.
I'm amazed that the angle of the targeting pod in DCS and the angle of the UAP's rotation match so closely given that the simulation is very limited in accuracy, my recreation isn't perfect and has a lot of assumptions and I had just picked an almost random speed/range for the other aircraft.
Yes you could argue that they aren't spot on, or Chris Lehto could argue that the UAP doesn't rotate enough but the fact that the rotation happens with the same rates at the same time is far too much to be a coincidence.
This is fantastic. Thank you ! Sorry I missed this if it was in another thread. We can see that the pod does rotate albeit much slower than I had predicted. Rotation seems to start around 20 deg mark. I had posited a while back in another thread that the bank angle of our hornet might line up in such a way; with the rate of turn of object, so as to create a less pronounced rotation. It seems that that is correct. Great job, reenacting the incident.
 

markus

Active Member
So this rotation we see is probably not far off. Again, it’s speculation but I believe it’s more speculative to assume the pod does not move at from beginning of gimbal video at 54 deg left to centre. I personally believe this to be impossible. And if that is impossible then consequently the rotating glare is not possible as described.
Well, we don't have to speculate. The information we have is plenty enough to calculate, at least what a simple two-axis system must be doing. Then we can take that as an upper bound for what the real system (designed to avoid coarse movements) actually does.

As a warm-up, let's just conjure an object moving in a straight horizontal line from left to right, about 4 degrees down from the viewer at the point of closest approach. If we set up a spherical coordinate system with zenith directly ahead, the theta and phi angles (physicist's convention) will correspond to the pitch and roll angles of a targeting pod. We can plot that over time, which looks like this:

rot.png
As you can see, the vast majority of the roll movement happens as the object crosses in front of the pod. By the way, what would happen if the pod simply "pitched-through" the gimbal singularity instead of rolling?
If this is the case and the pivot line did remain at 12 and 6, its hypothesised that we would need to rotate at the centre line to continue across the other side. But why? If its managed to get from left to centre without rotating the outer pod then, why now? It could just continue pivoting around.
Well, if it did, this would happen:
rot_pt.png
1. The first and second derivatives of the roll are singular across the transition. Not good -- it means the force applied by the servo must be approach a delta function.
2. The pitch angle is discontinuous (after all, for any "impact parameter" greater than zero the minimum pitch angle is also greater than zero). The movement will have to be very jerky here.

A designer that wants smooth motion will prefer to rotate the gimbal instead of "pitching through" the center.

Now let's get the real data. I don't have the frame-by-frame elevation so I'll just punch in 4 degrees and assume a horizontal line like the above- it doesn't matter too much. I do have the frame-by-frame azimuth though, so I'll use that to calculate the coordinates along the line. Here's what we get:
rot2.png

How well does this gel with the orientation of the gimbal? Well, I'm glad you asked. Let's eyeball overlay this graph with the one from Tero2021 above:

overlay.png
Near exact agreement! Except near the cusp, where the internal mirrors would kick in to minimize the amount of movement.

Python source code is attached as .txt, with the azimuth data in csv.
 

Attachments

  • rot.txt
    1.3 KB · Views: 79
  • rot2.txt
    991 bytes · Views: 80
  • azimuth.csv
    26.5 KB · Views: 81

Agent K

Senior Member
Latest from Lehto. Should we continue this here or start a new thread? He goes through a bunch of arguments, and concludes that the blob's size is smaller than the length of an F-18, even though I don't recall anyone saying that the Gimbal object is an F-18 viewed from the side where it wouldn't cause glare. The FLIR1 object maybe.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYH2uBiY0vE
 

Itsme

Active Member
These models are just another falsification of the rotating glare hypothesis:
1628933020932.png

1628931744401.png
A mismatch of about a factor 2...

The fact that the object rotates most when the gimbal nears its zenith point is nothing new. It was the reason the gimbal hypothesis was born in the first place.

The actual quick rotation of the gimbal when it nears its zenith point is easily recognizable at the end of the gimbal video (and not included in Tero2021's YouTube video). It starts with a sudden pendulum-like motion of the object (same as in the FLIR1 video) and the total rotation takes about a second. You would expect a equally sudden and dramatic effect on the glare and its rotation in that one second where the gimbal makes a sudden almost 180 degree turn, but nothing significant happens to the glare at all.

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Daniel F

Member
This DCS sim seems to be in line with my projections. Initially there is a smaller amount of rotation due to the combination if the bank angle of the hornet and the turn radius keeping the object target line somewhat perpendicular to the, what I described as, pivot point axis. Ive drawn carefully as I could over some stills to show what I mean. We can see the pod rotate externally, keeping its pivot line somewhat perpendicular to the target line. We can also see the internal rotation of the screen; continuously throughout the encounter. Again, its a sim. Doesn't prove anything definitively but I'd say its in line with what I imagine the pod is doing.
 

Attachments

  • POD!.pdf
    2.4 MB · Views: 94

Mendel

Senior Member.
Again, its a sim. Doesn't prove anything definitively but I'd say its in line with what I imagine
Precisely.
It's answering the question "what if the pod had only 2 gimbals, and the outer gimbals worked perfectly". I liked the thread with the patents earlier, it's clear that the ATFLIR has two pairs of gimbals (or rather, a pair of gimbals and a pair of mirrors), and that the inner pair is needed to make up for the mechanical deficiencies of the outer pair. Mick West has also said this in here, that the outer gimbal is used as little as possible.

So I'd say if you do not have any information on the inner gimbals, you can't "debunk" the idea that the glare rotation is caused by the derotation device.
And because the sim behaves exactly as the 2-gimbal mechanics would, we know that that the sim does not incorporate any information on the inner gimbals, it is therefore worthless as evidence.

What you imagine is not enough to match reality; it's 2 mirrors short of it.
 

Daniel F

Member
Precisely.
It's answering the question "what if the pod had only 2 gimbals, and the outer gimbals worked perfectly". I liked the thread with the patents earlier, it's clear that the ATFLIR has two pairs of gimbals (or rather, a pair of gimbals and a pair of mirrors), and that the inner pair is needed to make up for the mechanical deficiencies of the outer pair. Mick West has also said this in here, that the outer gimbal is used as little as possible.

So I'd say if you do not have any information on the inner gimbals, you can't "debunk" the idea that the glare rotation is caused by the derotation device.
And because the sim behaves exactly as the 2-gimbal mechanics would, we know that that the sim does not incorporate any information on the inner gimbals, it is therefore worthless as evidence.

What you imagine is not enough to match reality; it's 2 mirrors short of it.
I understand Mendel. This is all speculation. The point I’m making is the actual pod which picks out a place in the sky. This is bound by 2 axis. So yes, when we track an object there is a ton of stuff going on inside. All manner of rotation and turning. I’m merely stating that I believe all these internal mean diddly if the pod is not looking at that particular point. So fundamentally we are somewhat bound by the initial 2 axis. The rotating glare hypothesis is that the pod remains horizontal. Pivots across. Then rotates at/around 0 deg. My argument is that the data on screen depicting the targets location cannot be reached merely by internal mechanics of pod and that it has to do some work. I’m arguing this on the theory of it’s available motion and these other images of real targeting pod footage and sim footage which seem to back this rotation up. Again, it’s my opinion and I respect all others.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
I understand Mendel. This is all speculation. The point I’m making is the actual pod which picks out a place in the sky. This is bound by 2 axis. So yes, when we track an object there is a ton of stuff going on inside. All manner of rotation and turning. I’m merely stating that I believe all these internal mean diddly if the pod is not looking at that particular point. So fundamentally we are somewhat bound by the initial 2 axis. The rotating glare hypothesis is that the pod remains horizontal. Pivots across. Then rotates at/around 0 deg. My argument is that the data on screen depicting the targets location cannot be reached merely by internal mechanics of pod and that it has to do some work. I’m arguing this on the theory of it’s available motion and these other images of real targeting pod footage and sim footage which seem to back this rotation up. Again, it’s my opinion and I respect all others.
All these axis's control where the camera in the pod is looking though. The camera's direction of looking is not fully bound by it's 2 coarse axis's as it has additional methods to control where it is looking. Up until a point where it has to use mains axis.

It's the difference between just using your neck joint to control where you are looking and using your eye muscles as well, you use your eyes until you have to move your head.
 

Daniel F

Member
All these axis's control where the camera in the pod is looking though. The camera's direction of looking is not fully bound by it's 2 coarse axis's as it has additional methods to control where it is looking. Up until a point where it has to use mains axis.

It's the difference between just using your neck joint to control where you are looking and using your eye muscles as well, you use your eyes until you have to move your head.
Totally agree. That’s kind of what we see initially in the sim. We are bound by 6 deg fov ? Is that correct ? Apologies I can’t find the spec at this moment. If an object is within this fov then of course, only the fine internal motions are required. As soon as it is out of that ‘window’ then the window must move. Using your eye, neck analogy. If we want to watch something 54 deg on our left, 6 deg below ( although I’m not sure this 6 deg is accurate in this respect as the net is banking ) . We naturally use out eyes to focus on the object and follow if and when necessary turn our entire head. So I’m not arguing that notion. I feel I may be going round in circles but my previous posts hopefully show what I mean. That this target, and most air targets would require some constant ( maybe slight at times ) but nonetheless constant rotation.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
How does the bank angle of the Navy aircraft affect the derotation, and motion of the gimbal? How does the heading of the aircraft affect the bearing of the target from the ATFLIR?
One of the graphs incorporates a bank angle (for which aircraft?), shouldn't that be reflected in the amount of gimbal rotation?
I’m merely stating that I believe all these internal mean diddly if the pod is not looking at that particular point. So fundamentally we are somewhat bound by the initial 2 axis.
Yes. But how much are we "bound", exactly?The window on the front of the ATFLIR is quite big, so another gimbal pair inside could have quite some excess field of view to look at and rotate to.

See, with the evidence presented, the logic is:
1) a simple 2-gimbal system must rotate glare continuously
2) the UAP in the video does not rotate continuously (has this been shown? gimbal rotation in that graph isnt much)
3) therefore, the UAP is not rotating glare, OR it's not a simple 2-gimbal system

And since we already know (from Raytheon patents!) that ATFLIR is not a simple 2-gimbal-system, "the UAP is not rotating glare" can be true or false without invalidating the logic. You can't prove anything that way.
 

Daniel F

Member
How does the bank angle of the Navy aircraft affect the derotation, and motion of the gimbal? How does the heading of the aircraft affect the bearing of the target from the ATFLIR?
One of the graphs incorporates a bank angle (for which aircraft?), shouldn't that be reflected in the amount of gimbal rotation?

Yes. But how much are we "bound", exactly?The window on the front of the ATFLIR is quite big, so another gimbal pair inside could have quite some excess field of view to look at and rotate to.

See, with the evidence presented, the logic is:
1) a simple 2-gimbal system must rotate glare continuously
2) the UAP in the video does not rotate continuously (has this been shown? gimbal rotation in that graph isnt much)
3) therefore, the UAP is not rotating glare, OR it's not a simple 2-gimbal system

And since we already know (from Raytheon patents!) that ATFLIR is not a simple 2-gimbal-system, "the UAP is not rotating glare" can be true or false without invalidating the logic. You can't prove anything that way.
Regarding bank angle- I mean that if the object is 6 deg below the jets horizon line, it’s not immediately obvious to me that the pod is looking 6 deg down as the jet is in a bank. That’s what I was getting at there. I may be wrong if someone wants to correct me , that’s fine, I’m sure they will !
look at the sim in relation to what I have been postulating in this thread and you see a correlation. If you want to tell me that you don’t see any correlation and you disagree, then that’s fine. We can agree to disagree. I really don’t mind. It’s a theory ! An opinion ! C’ est la vie. I can clearly see the pod rotating apart from the beginning few seconds where the bank angle of jet and turn radius keep the object in a position where the pod doesn’t need to rotate.
 

markus

Active Member
Regarding bank angle- I mean that if the object is 6 deg below the jets horizon line, it’s not immediately obvious to me that the pod is looking 6 deg down as the jet is in a bank. That’s what I was getting at there. I may be wrong if someone wants to correct me , that’s fine, I’m sure they will !
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/a1-f18ac-746-100-atflir-principles-of-operation-pdf.44937/

See "elevation readout" and "azimuth readout display". Elevation is stated to be with respect to the horizon, and azimuth with respect to the ground track. The aircraft compensates for bank angle. It would be very obvious if it didn't -- those numbers would go all over the place.
 

markus

Active Member
The rotating glare hypothesis is that the pod remains horizontal. Pivots across. Then rotates at/around 0 deg. My argument is that the data on screen depicting the targets location cannot be reached merely by internal mechanics of pod and that it has to do some work.
These models are just another falsification of the rotating glare hypothesis:

(...)

It really hurts to see a lot of you sink into your own rabbit hole and to see this whole discussion becoming tribal. The only thing that will suffer from this is the truth.
Please look at the blue dots and the orange solid line. I get it, it's a little washed out, I don't have the raw data at the moment, but hopefully it's clear enough. The orange line is the expected roll angle for a two-axis pod. The blue dots are the saucer angle calculated using PCA, from Tero2021's video. Do you have an explanation for this near-perfect agreement? It's naturally explained by the glare hypothesis, but the hypothesis that it's an external object that coincidentally matches its orientation to the ATFLIR gimbal mount has a tiny p-value.
overlay.png
 

markus

Active Member
can you modify your model to have to outer rotation match the glare rotation, and then graph the resulting error as x/y angles (to be compensated by a pair of mirrors)?
I'm not sure if I'm understanding this right. Are you suggesting that I could take the glare rotation angle, together with the elevation angle from the readout, and derive the azimuth angle up to a constant? If I had the raw data it should be simple enough to do. But I'm not clear on what is hoped to be learned by doing it: the internal mechanics of those coelostat mirrors, whatever they are, perform various rotations with respect to the pod, so it's arguably more appropriate to think of them in terms of bank angles, i.e., it sounds to me like the relevant errors should be obtained by subtracting calculated and observed roll angles in the above overlay image. Am I missing something?
 

Tomer

Member
Suggest a better explanation that's more plausible than glare that may or may not look odd.
Too many of you fall back on this argument that well, it doesn't really resemble any actual example of jet engine glare but jet engine glare is more plausible than aliens so it must be jet engine glare. It's a poor argument.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
Too many of you fall back on this argument that well, it doesn't really resemble any actual example of jet engine glare but jet engine glare is more plausible than aliens so it must be jet engine glare. It's a poor argument.

I think we may have different views on the burden and/or standard of proof appropriate in case like the Gimbal video. The original claim, by people like TTSA, is that the video shows phenomena not explicable by any known human technology: maybe alien, maybe not alien - but what else could it be?

To rebut this claim it is not necessary to prove definitively that the phenomena to be explained are due to glare (in combination with the rotation of the ATFLIR gimbal), just that it is possible. It isn't even strictly necessary to show that it is highly probable, though the fact that the main rotation of the 'object' coincides with motion of the pod past the 0 degrees point does make it inherently plausible that the rotation of the gimbal is involved. An even stronger argument, amounting almost to proof, would be that other random features of the image, distinct from the main features attributed to glare, rotate in synch with the 'glare'. There would be no earthly (or extraterrestrial) reason for such features to rotate in synch with a distant physical object, whereas if they, like the 'glare', are all artifacts of the camera that is just what we would expect. Many people say that they can see such rotation, and I think I can see it, but I may be deluding myself.

In short, the burden of proof rests on those who claim that the video shows something extraordinary, and the standard of proof is a high one. It is for the advocates of the 'extraordinary' interpretation to show that there is no reasonable alternative. I think they tacitly accept this, because they (including some contributors to this forum) seem very determined to rule the 'rotating glare' theory out.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Too many of you fall back on this argument that well, it doesn't really resemble any actual example of jet engine glare but jet engine glare is more plausible than aliens so it must be jet engine glare. It's a poor argument.

people in this thread think "it doesn't really resemble any actual example of jet engine glare"? it looks like jet engine glare to me.
 

Daniel F

Member
I think we may have different views on the burden and/or standard of proof appropriate in case like the Gimbal video. The original claim, by people like TTSA, is that the video shows phenomena not explicable by any known human technology: maybe alien, maybe not alien - but what else could it be?

To rebut this claim it is not necessary to prove definitively that the phenomena to be explained are due to glare (in combination with the rotation of the ATFLIR gimbal), just that it is possible. It isn't even strictly necessary to show that it is highly probable, though the fact that the main rotation of the 'object' coincides with motion of the pod past the 0 degrees point does make it inherently plausible that the rotation of the gimbal is involved. An even stronger argument, amounting almost to proof, would be that other random features of the image, distinct from the main features attributed to glare, rotate in synch with the 'glare'. There would be no earthly (or extraterrestrial) reason for such features to rotate in synch with a distant physical object, whereas if they, like the 'glare', are all artifacts of the camera that is just what we would expect. Many people say that they can see such rotation, and I think I can see it, but I may be deluding myself.

In short, the burden of proof rests on those who claim that the video shows something extraordinary, and the standard of proof is a high one. It is for the advocates of the 'extraordinary' interpretation to show that there is no reasonable alternative. I think they tacitly accept this, because they (including some contributors to this forum) seem very determined to rule the 'rotating glare' theory out.
Well said David. I totally agree.
But may I just add on the other side that; I constantly approach this particular conundrum with trepidation and a worry that I’m going against the grain or insulting someone. I should be able to make an argument and not constantly feel the need to preface with ‘ I respect everyone’s opinion but ‘… or worry that I may be perceived as muddying the waters with some nefarious ‘ very determined ‘ intent.
So let me be clear personally. I come to this forum with the opinion that I’m the wrong one. I’ll make an argument that I believe; but await someone much smarter than me to respond, which in turn corrects me and clears something. That is healthy debate. I never approach from ‘I know I’m right and someone else is wrong’ . I believe go fast is not fast. I believe flying pyramids are bokeh. I believe flir1 to not exhibit physics defying acceleration. It’s just this rotation that I question as it really bugs me , so I put forward reasons as to why. No more no less. Rotational glare is the absolute stand out theory, for good reason. So my qualms should not be perceived as anything other than just trying to generate a discussion about a particular detail. If it comes across in any other way then that’s a pity and not my intention.
 
Top