Matt33
Member
Lehto says Elizondo says the pilots said...getting a bit nearer to an original quote would be nice.This line about the pilots saw it rotating throws a brand new spanner in the works
Lehto says Elizondo says the pilots said...getting a bit nearer to an original quote would be nice.This line about the pilots saw it rotating throws a brand new spanner in the works
The question remains what the voices were eyewitnesses of. "There's a whole fleet of them look on the ASA" is a description of an image on a screen. "It's rotating" and "look at that thing" ("thing" possibly meaning oddly shaped due to glare and all on a screen) can also be just that.But can we really ignore eyewitnesses in this way?
in this recent video by Lehto, he states that Lue Elizondo spoke to gimbal pilots and that they eyeballed the object and that it rotated. I've not heard this anywhere else. It's an important piece of information if accurate
Lue told told me that someone told him that the object rotated.
So there are several people here who see obviously the same phenomena ("fleet", "rotating thing") in the same moment (the moment the glare/object seemingly rotates in the video). These people are sitting in different (kinds of) aircrafts observing the glare/objects from at least at different angles, and propaply with different kinds of technical/optical modes.The question remains what the voices were eyewitnesses of. "There's a whole fleet of them look on the ASA" is a description of an image on a screen. "It's rotating" and "look at that thing" ("thing" possibly meaning oddly shaped due to glare and all on a screen) can also be just that.
Not necessarily. "My gosh" could be a confirmation of a "whole fleet" but "it's rotating" doesn't get any further comment.seemingly agreeing on what they are seeing
To the unbiased observer the left-hand image at 1:45 resembles the GIMBAL signature well enough to keep the glare hypothesis squarely on the table as the likeliest one. Were the images magically switched and the GIMBAL video would feature the left-hand signature but behaving as the GIMBAL object does, we would still hear and read all the same arguments against glare.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr1cfpos6vo
This is just a long and talkative way of saying 'i think it's a glare'. I think it's pretty clear that I understand the argument for it being a glare and don't agree so I'm not sure talking about the same point ad nauseam is going to develop the argument any further.Those who are satisfied with the "glare rotation as the gimbal ortates the camera" hypothesis aren't likely to do that, so let me toss the ball back int your court for that one.
I think it is an aircraft, which may not be within the definition of "craft" you intended. I don't think we are seeing the shape of the craft, which I think s hidden in the glare and edge-finding software that define the shape of the glare more sharply. My reasons for thinking that have been developed by folks in threads on this topic here on MetaBunk. If you have a better theory, I'd be interested to hear it. For me, the standard of "proof" will be pretty high if you want to argue that it is something along the lines of aliens, beings from anther dimension, or the like, and fairly high for an "advanced tech beyond what we know the government (or somebody) has got. And in any case, you'll have to make a better case than the one that has been made by Mr. West et al concerning glare and camera rotation. Simply attacking that hypothesis is not going to do it. (Hypotheses can be attacked, which of course is not attacking the people supportng it, I understand that.) And of course convincing me of anything need not be among your top priorities!
No, it is likely that one did! Again, not in the sense I think you mean! If you mean, as I ander the impression that you do, that the/a military maybe made something way beyond the tech we know about -- maybe, but I am not seeing evidence of that in the vid, nor in the other leaked Navy vids. The eyewitness accounts describe things that might support such a hypothesis, the videos, in my view, do not -- and I'm frankly getting a little "over" how the UAPs always are claimed to do all sorts of impossble stuff except when the cameras are rolling. It is a consistent enough pattern that I begin to assign significance to it.
Doesn't appear to me to be doing so, no. And since not, it does not show me evidence that it is unusual. Maybe it is -- as an example, a glowing hot spaceship from some distant star system would presumably show the same glare, and it would appear to rotate when the camera rotates as easily as would happen with a hot jet aircraft. But I am already sure that jet planes exist and fly through the skies of Earth.
Yeah, that's what was claimed as the unusual/impossible maneuver captured in the vid.
I don't know, but of course that is only an issue if the target is assumed to rotate rather than the glare/camera. I am reading with interest the arguemnt being made by those who believe the rotation is not caused by the simultaneous camera rotation. I dont find the arrguments compelling, but as I said, I understand that my finding them compelling is not top of the list of things to worry about for folks!
How do you know that the people on the soundtrack were 'sitting in aircraft'? It sounds to me more like they are sitting together somewhere, maybe in the operations room on the Nimitz (or was it the Princeton?) reviewing what is shown on display screens. They do seem to have evidence from radar not on the ATFLIR display in the Gimbal video.These people are sitting in different (kinds of) aircrafts observing the glare/objects from at least at different angles, and propaply with different kinds of technical/optical modes.
exactly ! I knew as I was typing it how schoolyard whisper-like it was and how it's not worthy of much debate here. I was more surprised, and therefore compelled to recount it here, by the fact I had never heard or read that component of the story at all. How ever many years since the gimbal release.Lehto says Elizondo says the pilots said...getting a bit nearer to an original quote would be nice.
It's a poor argument, they don't look the same, and you know it
How do you know that the people on the soundtrack were 'sitting in aircraft'? It sounds to me more like they are sitting together somewhere, maybe in the operations room on the Nimitz (or was it the Princeton?) reviewing what is shown on display screens. They do seem to have evidence from radar not on the ATFLIR display in the Gimbal video.
So there are several people here who see obviously the same phenomena ("fleet", "rotating thing") in the same moment (the moment the glare/object seemingly rotates in the video). These people are sitting in different (kinds of) aircrafts observing the glare/objects from at least at different angles, and propaply with different kinds of technical/optical modes.
And all of them suffer the same illusions?
At least there are two persons here, sitting in two different aircrafts, seemingly agreeing on what they are seeing (with their eyes or on their own screen) in the same moment with different points of view.
Fair enough: I tend to be too wordy. I'll condense it -- A strong case has been made that it is glare that appears to rotate as the ATFLIR rotates. If somebody can develop an alternate theory that fits the facts better, I'm interested. Absent a better theory, I'll stick with the best one I've seen.This is just a long and talkative way of saying 'i think it's a glare'. I think it's pretty clear that I understand the argument for it being a glare and don't agree so I'm not sure talking about the same point ad nauseam is going to develop the argument any further.
Do you think you guys could maybe back off the constant strawmaning of the extraterrestrial hypothesis? I don't believe I've mentioned ET once and yet many of the responses I receive I have to deal with petty jokes about the likelyhood of extraterrestial visitation. It's poor form for debate.That's right, the left-hand glare looks even more extraterrestrial than the GIMBAL. I know it does
Do you think you guys could maybe back off the constant strawmaning of the extraterrestrial hypothesis? I don't believe I've mentioned ET once and yet many of the responses I receive I have to deal with petty jokes about the likelyhood of extraterrestial visitation. It's poor form for debate.
OK, used the atan2 function and now got similar results. The atan2 (or arctan2 in python) will resolve division by 0 errors by returning an angle of pi/2 or 1.5 pi (depending on the sign of the non-zero argument). It also selects the right quadrant.Your image isn't loading for me but from your description it sounds like something went wrong in the transition to the spreadsheet. Here's what I get simply setting the elevation to -2 degrees:
View attachment 46464
It's very similar. Definitely no divisions by zero or anything like that, which can't happen with an elevation angle of -2 degrees. A division by 0 only happens when elevation angle and azimuth are both 0 -- that is the gimbal singularity.
Possible. But that's unlikely. Why should they record their review? Ín that bad plane-like quality. Without review-like language.How do you know that the people on the soundtrack were 'sitting in aircraft'? It sounds to me more like they are sitting together somewhere, maybe in the operations room on the Nimitz (or was it the Princeton?) reviewing what is shown on display screens. They do seem to have evidence from radar not on the ATFLIR display in the Gimbal video.
Ok. Did not know that little but very important aspect. How do we know? Did I missed it in the threads or is it comfirmed elsewhere?This is a dual seat F/18 both voices (pilot and WSO) are likely sat in the same aircraft looking at the same data on the same size screens.
As far as I'm aware, the fa18 is the only navy fighter with Atflir system. These are two seater jets. I've never actually seen written verification of this but that's my understanding.Ok. Did not know that little but very important aspect. How do we know? Did I missed it in the threads or is it comfirmed elsewhere?
Ok. Did not know that little but very important aspect. How do we know? Did I missed it in the threads or is it comfirmed elsewhere?
Additionaly, there is a Soundtrack belonging to the video. Obviously, when the glare/object is rotating, Pilot 1 says something like "look at that thing"; and pilot 2 says "It's rotating". How can that be, if the cause is just in the mechanics of one optical device? Furthermore, at the beginning somebody says: "Its a whole fleet of them". And nobody contradicts.
I know, we are just looking to the "real" data in form of photo/video and so on. But can we really ignore eyewitnesses in this way?
The same plane and the same flight? So also the same Pilot & WSO in gimbal and gofast?We also know this video is filmed from the same plane on the same flight as ther Go Fast video which also has two voices who appear to be operating the same aircraft
"......Two of these videos, colloquially dubbed "Go Fast" and "Gimbal," displayed one of the objects that had perplexed Graves and his fellow Red Rippers back in 2015. The DoD would later authenticate the clips and confirm the objects in the videos were indeed "unidentified aerial phenomena....."The same plane and the same flight? So also the same Pilot & WSO in gimbal and gofast?
Wow. How do we know that? I ve searched for that on wiki already but can't find anything detailed.
We mostly know because the mission unique PRF code displayed on the ATFLIR overlay in the videos is the same on both videos.The same plane and the same flight? So also the same Pilot & WSO in gimbal and gofast?
Wow. How do we know that? I ve searched for that on wiki already but can't find anything detailed.
I dont think we can tell that. How was the video captured exactly? Was it recorded live from the screen in which the audio is actually live, too... or was the video extracted from digital recording and audio added afterwards?So there are several people here who see obviously the same phenomena ("fleet", "rotating thing") in the same moment (the moment the glare/object seemingly rotates in the video). These people are sitting in different (kinds of) aircrafts observing the glare/objects from at least at different angles, and propaply with different kinds of technical/optical modes.
And all of them suffer the same illusions?
At least there are two persons here, sitting in two different aircrafts, seemingly agreeing on what they are seeing (with their eyes or on their own screen) in the same moment with different points of view.
Norfolk UK?There is another curious analogy. Although the NYT has repeatedly stated that the gimbal video was taken on January 21, 2015 off the coast of Florida, while gofast subsequently off the coast of Virginia, the weather analysis shows no jet stream of 120 knots at fl250 in that area. On the other hand, this phenomenon was present on 24 January 2015 off the coast of Norfolk.
But these were separate missions, were they not? This shows the footage was taken within the same exercise.mission unique
Norfolk UK?
The voices sound similar, in addition to all the other reasons.The same plane and the same flight? So also the same Pilot & WSO in gimbal and gofast?
Wow. How do we know that? I ve searched for that on wiki already but can't find anything detailed.
The VFX guys at Corridor Crew just did a blind debunk of the Gimbal & Tic Tac video, seemingly unaware of the ongoing debate.
Their initial conclusions are similar to Mick's.
It should be interesting to see what unfolds as they learn about the existing arguments.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHDlfIaBEqw&ab_channel=CorridorCrew
The problem is that, at this point, the theory that the black shape is a rotating object has been pretty much experimentally refuted. I don't think anybody ever said the pilots saw the thing with their naked eye, but if they did, that statement must be viewed in the context of us having the video available which provides convincing evidence that the rotating black shape is not a physical object, since it matches the expected gimbal rotation rotation very closely. The 'glare' hypothesis explains this naturally, while the 'object' hypothesis demands it to be a coincidence (and you can estimate how likely that coincidence is). Maybe the object that causes the glare is also rotating, but we're not seeing any clear evidence of that on the video. If the witnesses saw it rotate, that could be it, or they might have imagined it. For context, the field of view NAR 2x mode is a little smaller than the full moon:This line about the pilots saw it rotating throws a brand new spanner in the works for me though. Yes it's wonky eye witness at distance , but it would push this kind of ir spoofing theory straight back into the long grass again !
The proposal that this is a mylar balloon reflecting the sun is interesting, I'm not sure if it has been proposed before. This means that this object and the "cube within a sphere" could be the same thing.The VFX guys at Corridor Crew just did a blind debunk of the Gimbal & Tic Tac video, seemingly unaware of the ongoing debate.
Their initial conclusions are similar to Mick's.
It should be interesting to see what unfolds as they learn about the existing arguments.
That's why I said "seemingly".It's not clear whether they are unaware of any ongoing debates.
Did anyone link them here?That's why I said "seemingly".
At the end, they ask for input about the HUD from pilots or anyone who can explain the details.