You can say that again.
I threw together a scenario where the object follows the 10 NM line that I had created, to see the 3D shape of such a trajectory. Interestingly enough, it doesn't only come to a horizontal stop while accelerating vertically, it changes direction (something you can see if you squint
back here). Here's a view of the trajectory looking directly from the side — the orange lines are the corners of the FOV frame:
View attachment 49753
So, it's rising and vertically accelerating while slowing down horizontally, and then it makes a vertical U-ey. Similar trajectories seem to occur closer than 10 NM.
This is increasingly resembling Ryan Graves' account — enough so that I'm starting to think he really was seeing the Gimbal object on the SA page. However, I'm highly skeptical that any object took this decelerating parabolic upward trajectory. It doesn't look like a physical trajectory. It looks more like a mathematical curve, or like what you'd see if you projected a straight line onto a curved surface.
So, here's a new hypothesis: System-integration failure. The various systems were collecting information on the Gimbal object, but the synthesis of this information failed — so, rather than placing the object where it actually was, it showed up on the SA page as being much closer,
and taking the trajectory it would take if it were at that close range. Additionally the imaging was fragmented, resulting in the "fleet" of objects in an "imperfect wedge formation."
External Quote:
"The wedge formation was flying, let's call it north, then they turned their return radius right into the other direction, which is how aircraft turn. We have to bite into the air. So they turn in the other direction and keep going. Meanwhile, the 'Gimbal' object that was following behind them suddenly stopped and waited for the wedge formation to pass. Then it tilted up like you can see in the clip, and that's when my video cut out, but it just kept following the other five or six, doing like a racetrack pattern," Graves stated, explaining what isn't shown on the public "Gimbal" video.
Source:
https://thedebrief.org/devices-of-unknown-origin-part-ii-interlopers-over-the-atlantic-ryan-graves/
Maybe the video cut out because the video system crashed. We've all seen graphics glitches immediately before a computer crash.
External Quote:
Electro-optical systems, like the ATFLIR, have become staple pieces of hardware in modern military aircraft. The systems are integrated with other sophisticated avionics, including radar, all in hopes of providing the modern warfighter with a superior degree of situational awareness.
(same source)
However, the systems were recently upgraded at the time of Gimbal and GoFast:
External Quote:
Initially, Graves says the appearance of these odd interlopers roughly coincided with the F/A-18's upgrade to the AN/APG-79, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars. "Sometimes you get reflections off clouds with older radars, so we were somewhat accustomed to seeing stuff on the radar that didn't necessarily mean an object was actually there. The APG-79 wasn't supposed to have this issue, but it was pretty new, so we just assumed at first this was a bug in the software," said Graves.
Rather quickly, however, pilots began to realize whatever these radar returns were, they weren't bugs in the system. "We started locking these things up as solid returns and then slaving the FLIR to it, meaning you're seeing an IR [infrared] source. That's when we realized this wasn't necessarily some type of radar malfunction. There were physical objects out there."
(same source)
So, maybe there were malfunctions
and physical objects out there. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.