Gimbal UFO - A New Analysis

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs


The "Gimbal" UFO is the poster child of modern UFO videos. Leaked in 2017, and officially released in 2019, it's considered by many to show a genuine anomalous craft, exhibiting flight characteristics beyond current human technology.

But is it? There are four observables in the video, four things you can check yourself, that demonstrate that the most likely thing we are looking at is actually a camera artifact. It's probably an infrared glare, hiding the hot object behind it, and rotating only because the camera rotates when tracking the target from left to right.

This does not mean it's not a "UAP", or that it's not unidentified, or that it's not an amazing craft - it just means it's not actually exhibiting any incredible behavior, and so this opens the door to more mundane possibilities, like a distant small jet, just flying away, the heat of the engines (viewed up the exhaust) creating a large glare in the thermal camera.

Simulator: https://www.metabunk.org/gimbal/

While it's new to YouTube, a lot of the analysis in this video is the result of several discussion threads here on Metabunk.

Investigation the role of pitch and other facts in the glare angle, Markus.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calculating-and-visualizing-gimbal-angles.12237/

Edward Current's work on a full 3D model of the object's movement:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/gimbal-blender-simulation-with-clouds.12209/

realityseaker and Edward Current on the initial lack of rotation during banking.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/do...bunk-the-claim-that-the-object-rotates.12068/

Using OpenCV to track the cloud motion
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/automated-motion-tracking-in-videos-like-gimbal-and-gofast.12299/

Source code
If you just want to read the code, then it's mostly in a single file:
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/index-html-zip.50217/

If you want to edit/run the code, and look at the data, then there's a full zip of the project directory. It needs to be run on a server (which can be a local server) due to the local file loading.
https://www.metabunk.org/f/gimbal-source-code-and-data.zip

There's one additional external dependency, the Three.js library, and a variety of utilities from the examples/jsm folder. Here's the version I'm using. This should be in a folder three.js in the root of the server (which you can obviously change in the code).
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/three-js-zip.50218/
 

Attachments

  • index.html.zip
    33.4 KB · Views: 264
  • three.js.zip
    12 MB · Views: 196
Last edited:

JMartJr

Senior Member
Amazing. The significance of the bit in the first 20 seconds where an actual oval object SHOULD seem to rotate but the glare does not is a brilliant catch, and is the final nail in the coffin of this video showing an object that rotates mysteriously, in my opinion. Kudos on the amount of work this took!
 

Woolery

Active Member
I agree completely that the analysis is conclusive. It’s beautifully explained.

The conditions necessary for rotating glare to be present do not appear to be unusual. How is this illusion not one that experienced pilots have become accustomed to seeing on their display? How can this explainable visual effect seem aberrant to pilots familiar with ATFLIR?

I’m sorry if I’ve overlooked this explanation in a previous post.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
How can this explainable visual effect seem aberrant to pilots familiar with ATFLIR?
That's a lot of unknowns behind that. Maybe that was the first time they saw it. Maybe it's uncommon, or the result of miscalibrated hardware, or some unusual combination of events.

And we don't have many pilots with relevant experience weighing in on it, so it's hard to say exactly how familiar/unfamiliar they are with this type of thing.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A question about the Gimbal UFO glare hypothesis is how the camera could keep "looking up the tailpipe" of a distant jet through the entire turn. Here's the simplest trajectory (via @edwardcurrent) The angle (ignoring wind) varies from 16° to 13°, good angles to see hot turbines

Angle of the distant plane 13 and 16.jpg

I think people might be having some trouble because they think the banking and change of angle of the camera means the jet is flying in a circle around the target. But at this distance the arc that is covered hardly changes the angle at all.
13° is the end result, a bit brighter perhaps.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
That's a lot of unknowns behind that. Maybe that was the first time they saw it. Maybe it's uncommon, or the result of miscalibrated hardware, or some unusual combination of events.

And we don't have many pilots with relevant experience weighing in on it, so it's hard to say exactly how familiar/unfamiliar they are with this type of thing.
Do we know how experienced this crew was? They certainly sound VERY excited and "hyped" for a crew that had been doing this for a long time. I don't want to speculate on that, but if I ever saw whether we knew that bit of info about them I've lost it in the several threads on this incident...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Do we know how experienced this crew was? They certainly sound VERY excited and "hyped" for a crew that had been doing this for a long time. I don't want to speculate on that, but if I ever saw whether we knew that bit of info about them I've lost it in the several threads on this incident...
I don't think there's any info about who the crew were, or how experienced they were with ATFLIR.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
I got the gist of the argument while following along on the various threads, but the technical aspects where way over my head.

However, now seeing the completed demonstration, it's incredibly simple, elegant and easy to follow. No technical knowledge needed. It shows how the targeting pod works and how we ended up seeing what we see. Excellent!

That being said, did I read Lehto's comments right at the end of the video? He seems to say "...and it looks like the Gimbal object spin is related to the pod." But then says it's less then 10 miles away so it's irrelevant? Is he trying to say that, yes, the appearent spin is a rotating glare caused by the pod and not the object spinning wildly, but it's much closer and therefore...what? It's a small hot object a few miles away?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But then says it's less then 10 miles away so it's irrelevant? Is he trying to say that, yes, the appearent spin is a rotating glare caused by the pod and not the object spinning wildly, but it's much closer and therefore...what? It's a small hot object a few miles away?
Yeah, that's really a different issue, and I'd wait until @Edward Current posts his video before getting into it.
 

Leonardo Cuellar

Active Member
A question about the Gimbal UFO glare hypothesis is how the camera could keep "looking up the tailpipe" of a distant jet through the entire turn. Here's the simplest trajectory (via @edwardcurrent) The angle (ignoring wind) varies from 16° to 13°, good angles to see hot turbines

Angle of the distant plane 13 and 16.jpg

I think people might be having some trouble because they think the banking and change of angle of the camera means the jet is flying in a circle around the target. But at this distance the arc that is covered hardly changes the angle at all.
13° is the end result, a bit brighter perhaps.
I am more than convinced that the object was at a considerable distance, but you have to convince those who take for granted the claims of Ryan Graves in his speech at the AIAA:
"While returning from an Air-to-Air training mission, another A/C in my flight observed a number of interesting radar contacts. While stern converting the object and within 10nm, we see the following: (Gimbal glare ed)"
 

Tim Printy

Member
A question about the Gimbal UFO glare hypothesis is how the camera could keep "looking up the tailpipe" of a distant jet through the entire turn. Here's the simplest trajectory (via @edwardcurrent) The angle (ignoring wind) varies from 16° to 13°, good angles to see hot turbines

Angle of the distant plane 13 and 16.jpg

I think people might be having some trouble because they think the banking and change of angle of the camera means the jet is flying in a circle around the target. But at this distance the arc that is covered hardly changes the angle at all.
13° is the end result, a bit brighter perhaps.
Excellent work to Mick and all those who contributed.
 

Domzh

Active Member
found a quote of Ryan Graves where
he says the thing was essentially "motionless".

they had the object linked on radar together with their targeting pod. they dont point the pod in a rough direction and look for something but the pod itself locks the object based on the radar data (this is how he described it in previous segment of the interview). It sounds as if its rather unlikely that catched the wrong object with the pod.

maybe thats of interest:

KR: Yeah, when you see that image of that UFO rotating 90 degrees, as someone that is trained in this field, like, that’s that’s impossible, right? Does that just blow your mind?

RG: It kind of does. I mean, you gotta remember, too…if I was in a jet and I just wanted to drop my wing ninety degrees, I could do that. But I’m also traveling at a certain airspeed where this thing was motionless, essentially, other than the spin.

and:

"...People talked about it being exhaust, which I think, pretty much any pilot that spent any time looking through the FLIR is going to tell you this not an exhaust can.

But it’s great for people that, you know, are professional debunkers because it doesn’t matter what the answer is. It matters if they can make it look similar to something that they can recognize.

And that’s all the work they have to do. It’s kind of a lazy thing, in my opinion. I could I can show you a wolf and I can show you a dog. It doesn’t mean they’re the exact same animal.

KR
: Did you ever see any exhaust come off of any of these?

RG: Nope.

KR: That’s insane.

RG: Yeah, you know, so…which isn’t super exciting for something that’s motionless. But something that’s motionless and then starts moving? You know, it’s always a combination of events that makes it the most interesting.



Source: https://www.ufojoe.net/graves-transcript/

he also said that the smaller objects - that were in formation with the larger one -resembled objects they were seeing all the time and when they looked at them with the flir they looked as if someone pointed a flashlight in the sensor.

he said "but this (larger) object was different in this regard because it had clear outlines."

he also seems fully sold that we are not looking at an exhaust system and that the object was not moving. this could suggest some sort of balloney decoy / radar or IR spoofing device.

Especially if we think about the mentioned cube in a sphere, that resembles a known US radar deflector design and the weird bouncing radar tracks that they couldnt see whem their tracks merged.

it really all points to some massive radar spying / testing (if us or foreign is debatable) going on.

we also learned that a modern electronic warfare system utilizes not only fake radar tracks but also fake IR objects. personally my money is in this ballpark and not a plane exhaust. i am fully sold however that it is in fact glare and no actual rotation happened.

overall he comes across very grounded and without any ego (compared to Fravor), hes reminding me of Dietrich in this regard.

could a flashlight pointed in the sensor resemble light flare while the clear outlines come from glare?

what is motionless and able to produce glare in a flir? are there any infrared decoys? what could those small objects be that looked like a flashlight?

(The Navy NEMESIS EW System?)

6D485EDF-24CB-448F-B2F7-6CD2848CE364.jpeg

Theres more, according to the 2015 Navy Programme Guide (PDF) the Navy planned a War Game in 2015 to test NEMESIS:

In 2013 the Navy approved NEMESIS as a FY 2014 INP New Start. Initial NEMESIS activity involved planning discussions among the Office of Naval Research, the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, fleet commands and analysts, acquisition programs of record, government laboratories and warfare centers, the Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency, and federally funded research and development centers and university affiliated research centers.

To ensure NEMESIS is addressing current and future threats to naval battle group operations, threat assessments were initiated with the Intelligence Community, and a Navy Warfare Development Command NEMESIS war game will be conducted in 2015.
 
Last edited:

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
So , has Marik always written articles for the TheHill?
He has written a piece below saying thIs about the Gimba object

"In recent months, a small group of UFO sleuths conducted meticulous geometrical analyses of the “Gimbal” incident. They found a highly anomalous flight path for the UFO that, combined with radar observations and credible eyewitness descriptions, confirm that the “Gimbal” object exhibited breakthrough technologies."

https://thehill.com/opinion/3488406...dinary-discoveries-congress-should-take-note/
 
That was the very first thing I noticed watching the video 1 time. The bump and rotation.

I am a photographer and my first thought was, the camera is doing something here. Voila.. @Mick West you explained it perfectly to Lou Elizondo when he was so kind to accept an interview. His response was also kind of perfect, and shines a light on how this becomes the story, it now is. "We have the best engeniers on it..." but he have never heard about how the FLIR POD actually works? "I'm not familiar with the system" he says. (Minute 48:00 in the video). If AATIP was a real thing, they apparently was not a large crew. It is so hard to believe that he was both responsible for a small team - and also not aware of how the POD works. Not even able to read the IR images correctly. So strange. It does not add up.

He seems like a super guy, nevertheless. Would not mind a beer with the guy.

Another example that you can only put "UFO" in something you don't understand. The minute you understand what's going on, the UFO is "gone" and you are left with birds, balloons and other planes. Boring...
 
Top