Headline: "Famous Navy UFO video is camera glare hiding something ‘really interesting’, researcher says"

Rocky

Active Member
So could this headline be any more misleading? Not sure if Mick West has seen this yet as it's only 6 hours old. Straight from MSN looking for clicks. I watched the thorough analysis Mick posted recently regarding the "Gimbal" video and I thought at the time "I bet someone will take something out of context in this video" and I was right. This also reminds me of interviews I have watched or listened of different scientists that go on some of these History and Science channel shows where they have complained about their comments being edited in such a way to make it seem as though they agree with the fringe. But hey, they got paid and the networks can do what they want. So here is the article posted by MSN with a misleading headline of Mick Wests analysis...


Famous Navy UFO video is camera glare hiding something ‘really interesting’, researcher says

Although the object appears to defy aerodynamics in the way that it travels, Mr West argues that what we are seeing is in fact a glare hiding a different object. That object is still unknown, he says, and could be “really interesting”
Content from External Source
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Facts in the article are wrong, headline is misleading. Science Journalism is in a bad state.
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
The agnostic approach you have to take to avoid being labelled close minded allows for clickbait and misrepresentation.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
That object is still unknown, he says, and could be “really interesting”, but information extracted from the Navy videos suggest that an alien craft may not be the best explanation.
Content from External Source
That's not too bad.

I'm more peeved that they don't seem to link to Mick's video or Metabunk.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That object is still unknown, he says, and could be “really interesting”, but information extracted from the Navy videos suggest that an alien craft may not be the best explanation.
Content from External Source
That's not too bad.

I'm more peeved that they don't seem to link to Mick's video or Metabunk.

The original story in the Independent does embed the video. The Author, Adam Smith has been told about the problems. He replied about the video issue, but not the headline, or the conflating of Gimbal (2015) with the 2004 TIc-Tac case
Source: https://twitter.com/adamndsmith/status/1504520921914216450
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The bs headline and mixing up nimitz with gimbal, might be good in the long run.
Debunking is about reaching the largest amount of people [on -the-fence] who might fall for the hoax; It's not really about trying to win arguments with die hard hoaxers themselves.

I think this article does this brilliantly. Click bait to get readers, nice simple matter-of-fact "debunk" of "Navy Video" which laymen likely think is [only] Nimitz- so now they know they can avoid all future articles that say "navy video".
And for the smaller subset of people who already know Gimbal is a separate thing, it "debunks" Gimbal.

Fravor and Elizondo won't be happy. but hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Their buddies write sketchy articles a lot of people believe, so now there is a sketchy article from the debunking side a lot of people will believe.

And they do clarify Mick's quote in the article itself.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
When I watched Mick's video and heard him say, basically, "who knows? just because it's most likely a standard jet engine glare it doesn't mean there isn't a spaceship hiding behind it" I took that to be a cheeky little gentlemanly pandering to those who wouldn't want the idea dismissed entirely.

Of course, any UAP once identified could have aliens hiding behind it so it's kind of meaningless. Real shame The Independent and MSN have twisted it the way they have.

I do find sometimes in my personal life that pandering and making allowances for others' off-kilterness doesn't always work out as I'd like. So maybe there's a lesson in there somewhere.

Damned if you express certainty, damned if you don't.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
Debunking is about reaching the largest amount of people [on -the-fence] who might fall for the hoax; It's not really about trying to win arguments with die hard hoaxers themselves.

And all the alien believers who dislike Mick's work can say "he doesn't know what he's talking about - it's not hiding anything interesting at all". :D
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Of course, any UAP once identified could have aliens hiding behind
well..once the P is identified, but not if the O is identified*. in this case the O was identified as a P, but yea -in this case-there's still another O behind the P.
but some Ps are transparent enough to see there is nothing behind it.

*and yes a bat flying across the moon, could technically be hiding a tiny ship...but chances of that are pretty astronomical.

I think your statement is a tad bit dismissive, as this case is fairly unique in that people thought the P was the O, but the P could only be produced BY an O. The point is: people are using the P movements to prove a ETO... and the P doesnt do that.
 

Edward Current

Active Member
People are still trying to argue that the P is the O. Just today someone DM'd me that the rotation we see is the thing turning around and going back in the opposite direction à la Graves:

Screen Shot 2022-03-18 at 4.22.54 PM.png

It's bad enough that they won't give up on Gimbal being something extraordinary, they won't even give up on the physical-rotation hypothesis, despite the lines of evidence now being 4–0 against it.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
they won't even give up on the physical-rotation hypothesis, despite the lines of evidence now being 4–0 against it.
maybe they dont understand the evidence against it. you do kinda have to devote quite a bit of mental energy to try to follow and understand new concepts unfamiliar to you. I myself never even looked at your model, as i'm just assuming i won't understand it. :) It took me like 2 months, and a patient teacher, to finally grasp the Appleman Chart relating to contrails, and the chart is a 2d drawing nicely labeled.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
despite the lines of evidence now being 4–0 against it
Also: let's pretend i did not read the 40,000 comments on Metabunk about Gimbal or i could not find the "right" thread to go to right now to answer my question, since there are so many threads...

briefly, what are the 4 lines of evidence?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
briefly, what are the 4 lines of evidence?
from the msn article
However UFO investigator Mick West says there are four aspects of the footage that suggest it is, in fact, a camera artefact rather than an alien craft: [1] no rotation when banking, [2] bumps before rotation, [3] rotating patterns, and [4] derotation matches – where the rotation of the shape matches the amount of derotation need to track the target.
Content from External Source
Mick goes down that list within the first minute of the video, if I recall correctly. I suggest you rewatch it.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I suggest you rewatch it.
yea i finally found it (through reddit) and saw that he mentions them. i'm going to have to watch this thing like 6 times i bet. It seems very nice and nicely put together, but there's alot going on on the screen that blows my unfamiliar mind. (AND i am somewhat familiar with gimbal debunks already... i feel more confident in my statement in comment #15 now :) )

but thank you for the visual list i forgot from the article. verbal learning is tougher for me.

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


ps i liked his demonstration on his workbench with the stick better, to explain the camera rotation. but i cant find it now.
 
Last edited:

sitarzan

Member
:) still havent found it...

That's the same video I was originally looking for (but couldn't find) to provide as as example to somebody a few days ago:

...Some of the most convincing analysis I've seen in metabunk threads, the basic idea of their theory typically starts off with a very simple, straightforward, easy-to-understand visual demonstration (a video, usually)...

I'm nuts about the JavaScript 3D Gimbal Explainer. Don't get me wrong. But you had me at the workbench explainer, @MickWest.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
I'm nuts about the JavaScript 3D Gimbal Explainer. Don't get me wrong. But you had me at the workbench explainer, @MickWest.

Agreed. In the age where CGI can create superficially realistic-looking fake physics, there's something almost "feelable" about just a simple jointed piece of wood. Almost everybody has encounted something jointed like that and how it doesn't bend the right way if it's not twisted the right way, there's almost some motor memory of this gimbal lock. And it's simple enough to make at home if you still have doubts - a toilet roll tube, a kitchen roll tube and some sticky tape is all you need. Possibly even just an elbow is all you need (but the wrist might add extra degrees of freedom that would confuse matters)
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Workbench explainer was genius. I also felt at the end when other instances of jet engine glare looking like the shape in the Gimbal video were mentioned I would have loved to have seen some quickfire examples. For me, things like that really help the penny drop.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I also felt at the end when other instances of jet engine glare looking like the shape in the Gimbal video were mentioned I would have loved to have seen some quickfire examples.
i didnt get to the end yet.

i noticed that it took till like 6 minutes in until he circled the glare shape and said something like "this is the glare shape"..i'm not sure real newbies, would know what he meant by "it's glare" until then. He did mention the white glow around it NOT being the glare earlier, but that went by quick.

Idea???? :

Maybe we should start a "Useful Gimbal graphics" thread in Sandbox (so @Mick West can build the public thread himself... so it is done correctly ie. without unnecessary commentary or joke videos). Graphics (smallish) should include link to original like:


1647703718986.png
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ny...ncounter-with-unknown-object.9333/post-216265
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1647703837439.png
Link to timestamp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

sitarzan

Member
...you do kinda have to devote quite a bit of mental energy to try to follow and understand new concepts unfamiliar to you...

I think it's phenomenal that so many smart people from so many different STEM-related disciplines contribute here.

I wonder to myself sometimes though: Is the ultimate goal of MetaBunk's UFO threads for math experts to impress other math experts?

If it is, then introducing a not-immediately-intuitive theory for the very first time by presenting dozens of equations and complicated geometric models is probably right on point.

Apart from West — and a couple others here — some contributors' science communication chops leave something to be desired; in my opinion.

That could be why their basic premise sometimes WHOOSHes over the heads of regular folk like me.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
I wonder to myself sometimes though: Is the ultimate goal of MetaBunk's UFO threads for math experts to impress other math experts?
That's an insulting way to say "I don't get what you're saying, could you please explain?"

The key mistake you're making is to assume that this platform is just for communication—if that were true, we'd be no more than the indoctrinated scientismics the CTists would have us be. But in fact there's often a phase of discovery where it's important to formulate and share thoughts, to find out what it is that's there to communicate it. How to present it to others is a step that must come later.

It's also fine for people to not excel at everything equally.

I'd really like to turn your demand on its head. We're all volunteers here, so I feel the laypeople on the forum can step up and feel responsible to ask questions that clarify matters for them, in a friendly fashion. Nobody pays me to entertain you, if you feel the "whoosh" it's also upon you to do something about it. (It was seriously weird when you complained about your question getting answered, though.)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The key mistake you're making is to assume that this platform is just for communication—if that were true, we'd be no more than the indoctrinated scientismics the CTists would have us be. But in fact there's often a phase of discovery where it's important to formulate and share thoughts, to find out what it is that's there to communicate it. How to present it to others is a step that must come later.
Mick can formulate ideas while still speaking in a way outside readers can understand. (although he has been slacking a bit on that lately).

Also, sometimes it takes an airhead to point out "but you guys forgot about x, y or z" to further advance the discussion. When you speak all fancy like, you lose the whole point of brainstorming forums.

so I feel the laypeople on the forum can step up and feel responsible to ask questions that clarify matters for them, in a friendly fashion.
i used to do that all the time on Metabunk. (as i figured men are more shy about asking questions). but even back then if (econ, orling etc) were speaking, i couldnt even come close to understanding the convo, then i didnt know what clarifying questions to ask. Sometimes i would ask them "what the heck are you guys talking about?" but the clarifying answer i got was uninterpretable too.

You people who talk too fancy for the bulk of readers probably serve a purpose as far as maybe reaching a sliver of bunk believers who can follow you. Like maybe Fravor himself can follow you and turning him (or Husley) would be great. But the chances of that happening are pretty slim.

This isnt an insult, i dont think most of you do it on purpose. Based on many of "your" responses to things i say, I think your brains are just wired so differently that constructive discussion is pretty useless. It's like some of you are talking greek. I cant ask questions about what you are saying in greek because i don't speak greek.

The responsibility really lies on those who speak greek and english, to translate for the target audience.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
My feeling is we're not all here to make every post and thread an accessible friendly explanation, Mick spends hours on his YouTube videos and those are often the culmination of all the high level tech chats that are had here "the factory floor" or "behind the scenes" if you will. If people ask questions or clarification during those threads we try our best to accommodate but it won't always happen as we are not all retired like Mick we have jobs and other things that get in our way. Also we are not always as good as Mick at explanations.

Metabunk is odd mix of the two (high level math/physics and also low level explanations) sometimes. I have talked about the potential for having something like a Discord where we can really hash out the speculative maths/physics stuff, but people generally feel it's better to have all the dirty laundry in public threads, so it's an open sort of peer review process. This seems to be what the majority want. I see the point as well, if someone like Chris Lehto or Ryan Graves or whomever disagrees with the explanations the forum is always open for them come and argue it here, oddly they never do. We also then close the floor to that one subject matter expert that comes along randomly and gives the actual answer.

If you want the discussions split directly between the nuts and bolts of the explanations as we figure them out, and then a different section where we make it accessible then that is direction for the forums that people would need to agree on.

And even then the openness and need to discuss often 'out there' alternative theories often leads to us being misquoted or the opinions of others who post here with a more "alien spaceship" point of view being used as "even Metabunk says," There's one redditor who always uses my work in the thread on the Batman balloon photos to claim that we don't think it is a balloon, even though that is well in my range of object sizes calculated

The side affect is that some conversations and threads are just going to be science/math heavy. I apologise for that but it does seem to be the best way.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I see the point as well, if someone like Chris Lehto or Ryan Graves or whomever disagrees with the explanations the forum is always open for them come and argue it here, oddly they never do

it is not odd.

this website is not particularly friendly to those with opposing views. Even when they first arrive and the members are for a short time somewhat polite, it is an instant "dog-pile"... which is unfair to the newcomer and likely distasteful to neutral outside readers.

You dont even have to have an opposing view. You get dogpiled on if you are neutral and just representing what the other side is saying. or debunking activist bunk a member may be spreading.

That is really the biggest drawback to Metabunk as a "call to arms"/battle misinfo site. Too many members who are on one side of the issues, only 2 or 3 who are actually neutral and then you get the one -all alone and dog piled on- on the opposite side of the issue.

Have you ever joined one of those FB conspiracy theory groups or tried to talk on a UFO believer youtube channel? One against the horde is not satisfying for long. :) The same thing happens here. It's just human nature that everyone wants to respond, but MB does not have a diversified enough membership.
 

sitarzan

Member
...I apologize...

No need to apologize. Honest. I was just sayin'.

Whether some UFO-related theory is easily explainable by somebody or whether it isn't, there's no skin off my teeth either way.

Anytime I've ever felt like I really, really, really need to grok something I might not have immediately got first time around, more often than not I've eventually learned it on my own.

...explanations...

Was it Richard Feynman who said something very similar to this about those?


“Dr. Hoenikker used to say that any scientist who couldn’t explain to an eight-year-old...” — Cat's Cradle, Kurt Vonnegut

Content from External Source
https://bit.ly/Charlannegut
 

markus

Active Member
Was it Richard Feynman who said something very similar to this about those?
A better aphorism would be that if you can't explain it to an eight year old you don't truly understand it. Not always true either (there are many concepts in, say, theoretical physics that are too abstract for that), but it's better.

The issue is that in many of these threads we're discussing things as part of the effort to understand them, so we're often on the wrong side of the aphorism. If you look in the threads that preceded this video you'll see some discussion on how best to communicate the stuff as well.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
It's not that we can't it's just that often we are not trying to do so. Because sometimes we are just trying to work it out, trust me the scientists at Feynman's intstitutions were not talking to each other behind the scenes at '8 year old' level, you just never get you see that part.

This place is pretty much the only place on the internet where people openly try to work this stuff out, is it perfect, no, but complaining about the way that people who dedicate their free time to removing misinformation from the world go about it is a little disheartening to those that do so.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
but complaining about the way that people who dedicate their free time to removing misinformation from the world go about it is a little disheartening to those that do so.
why?
i used to nag Mick all the time that 'regular' people can't understand him. I got a "thank you" for it in the dedication section of his book.

think of it as constructive criticism from your target audience. I finally 'got' the conveyor belt thing because you stuck with me using words i could understand, until i could see where my understanding was wrong. And that's a perfect example of "it's hard enough to see the picture inside someone else's mind even when we use easy to understand words, but if we use language they can't understand then .... the outlook is grim". :)

tldr: don't be disheartened. it takes a village.


edit add: and what's funny about that thread, even though i finally "got it" and translated for people like me, a bunch of people went on to apparently tell me i was wrong in some way using weird words that made no sense to me. lol.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
For some definition of "friendly".
Friendly is the opposite of antagonistic.
Antagonistic types of questions are e.g. trying to "catch you in a lie", assume the other party is malicious, or generally any type of power play that fails to recognize nobody is obligated to answer.

Understanding someone else is a process of communication, and all participants are responsible for its success or failure.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I finally 'got' the conveyor belt thing because you stuck with me using words i could understand, until i could see where my understanding was wrong.
Note that this, too, was a collaborative effort. @jarlrmai didn't come up with the "upturned shopping trolley" metaphor that he used to facilitate your understanding.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Note that this, too, was a collaborative effort. @jarlrmai didn't come up with the "upturned shopping trolley" metaphor that he used to facilitate your understanding.
that actually didnt do anything for me. i have spatial issues, the last thing you want to do is flip things upside down if i need to picture something!

but i get your point, i imagine it helped other readers. And the toy car analogy might have helped other readers too.
 
Top