"Highly Qualified Pilots" - Opinions vs Data

[Gary C]

As most here are aware, a major part of the cache' that UFOlogists attached to GIMBAL and other popular UAP stories is the testimony of the military pilots involved in the various incidents. This arises from the public acceptance of an assumption that pilots in general and fighter pilots in particular are subject matter experts in estimating the airspeed of things outside the cockpit. The flaw in this reasoning is that they are not actually very expert in determining the speed of the aircraft they are actually flying at the time. Humans are simply not very good at judging speeds beyond the narrow range in which we and the animals around us crawl, walk and run.

Trying to find an clear example, I hit on the emergency procedures that pilots are trained to use when trying to land without a working air speed indicator. It turns out for each aircraft I was able to find training material or an online manual for, there exists a set of procedures for configuring the air craft's power settings, attitude, and flight controls so that it will naturally settle into a range of airspeeds consistent with a safe landing.

Examples

This is the AI generated overview from publicly available documents for the F/A-18

AI Overview (google)

In the event of unreliable airspeed indications in an F/A-18, the aircrew should follow the relevant emergency procedures, which include:

• Disengage Autopilot and Flight Directors: If the autopilot is engaged, disengage it. Also deselect flight directors.
• Rapid Descent to Below 10,000 ft MSL (in F/A-18F): Initiate a rapid descent to below 10,000 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL).
• Utilize Standby Instruments and Visual Cues: Cross-check the primary flight displays with standby instruments like the standby airspeed indicator. Maintain visual flight conditions if possible.
• Angle of Attack (AoA) as a Landing Parameter: Instead of relying solely on airspeed, consider using Angle of Attack (AoA) as a critical indicator for landing. The F/A-18's Flight Control System (FCS) can help maintain a desired AoA, particularly during landing approach.
• Pitch and Power Settings:Understanding the relationship between pitch attitude, thrust (throttle setting), and AoA becomes crucial without reliable airspeed information.
  • On-speed Approach: Aim for a nose-up attitude of approximately 5 degrees, which corresponds to an AoA of around 8 degrees for a safe landing.
  • Descent Rate: A good approach involves maintaining a stable descent along a glide slope (around 2.5-3 degrees), controlling the descent rate with throttle adjustments. Aim for a descent rate that doesn't exceed -1000 ft/min on final approach (-800 ft/min is optimal).

The FAA page on this topic for general aviation pilots - https://downloads.regulations.gov/FAA-2017-0558-0003/attachment_1.pdf repeats the same types of procedures in more general terms for a broader audience.

In stark contrast to Hollywood's preferred depictions, a pilot cannot just "eyeball" the correct final approach speed for a jet or most other large aircraft well enough to land successfully.

The point is clear enough, why should we accept eyeball estimates of the speeds of unidentified objects when pilots are not demonstrably much better than non-pilots in making such judgements about unidentified objects, flying or otherwise?

I found a similar pattern in a more surprisingly mundane speed regime much closer to home, people's ability to estimate the speed of moving cars and trucks. I'll have to add that later ...

edited for grammatical errors

 

[flarkey]

I think the general assumption is that if someone does a difficult job that requires them to do difficult tasks well, then they must be are a high-performing individual and are good at the difficult tasks. I tend to agree with this, Pilots probably are better at judging speed & distance than, say, a shopkeeper. But that doesn't mean they'll never make mistakes, or does it mean that shopkeeper won't get it right ever. The fact the the FAA have highlighted this as an issue is probably more related to the risk associated with getting it wrong and the possible resultant crash.

Overall, eye-witness estimations regarding anything will be subject to errors. This is why eye-witness testimony can be bad evidence and should not be relied upon unless it is verified with other objective evidence.

 

[Stryder]

The flaw in this reasoning is that they are not actually very expert in determining the speed of the aircraft they are actually flying at the time.

While I concur that pilots are just as susceptible to optical misperceptions as any person, I take issue with the flat statement that they are inexpert at determining their airspeed in a craft they are expert at. My only direct experience is with low power single engine aircraft (e.g. Cessna 172, 152). I can say absolutely that there are many cues besides the airspeed indicator to determining the speed of the aircraft you are flying and the basic means to do so are taught in flight school. Some of these cues are things such as air noise in the cockpit, handling characteristics of the aircraft, angle of attack for level flight, speed of terrain passing below, etc. Early pilots only had these cues to fly with and some of the early aircraft were reasonably speedy and powerful.

I expect that any pilot expert at their aircraft would be able to reasonably estimate their airspeed over the normal range of flight (for their aircraft). Is that estimate going to be as accurate as the airspeed indicator (probably supplemented by radar or GPS data)? No, of course not. but compared to a non-expert, their ball park estimate would be much closer. So why are there procedures for every (or virtually every) aircraft on how to set throttle, flaps, trim, etc. when landing w/o an airspeed indicator? Because even a good estimate is not necessarily as good as configuring the aircraft in a standard way for a standard procedure (such as landing). Besides, when a pilot lands (in this example) using the airspeed indicator as an standard input 99.99% of the time, suddenly removing the airspeed indicator can momentarily disorient them, especially if they are in a complex flight environment. I surmise that landing a F-18 on a carrier is a complex flight environment under even the best of conditions. The standard flight settings serve to standardize conditions to the extent possible when one or more systems that are routinely used have failed. Could the pilot still land without this? Probably. Seat of the pants flying is really just a strong feel for the aircraft (with whatever inputs are available) and using the routines they have always used (such as flap settings, trim, settings, power settings) for a given procedure. The emergency routines are checklists to maximize the chances of success. I've never met a pilot that isn't happy to follow a checklist to increase their odds from 98% to 99.9% (no data to support the percentages, but directionally they are correct).

To assume that pilots can't estimate their own airspeed because there is an emergency checklist in place in case of a airspeed indicator failure is faulty logic. Just like any checklist in aviation, it is there to prevent the occasional human slip or remind pilots about uncommon procedures. Does a 737 captain need a checklist to complete a safe landing that they have done hundreds or thousands of times before? Of course not. Are they going to use the checklist anyways? Yes!

The point is clear enough, why should we accept eyeball estimates of the speeds of unidentified objects when pilots are not demonstrably much better than non-pilots in making such judgements about unidentified objects, flying or otherwise?

I am in violent agreement that pilots are not expert at judging speeds of "unidentified" objects. They are probably reasonably good at estimating speeds of familiar objects outside their aircraft, though to a lesser accuracy than judging their own airspeed. I believe this for two reasons. 1) I have done it myself as a pilot for a range of objects both airborne and not. And 2) I know military pilots are exposed to scenarios where they do this and are given feedback on their accuracy. But I only believe I could be decent at this for objects that I am familiar with. I know I have been fooled many times when estimating things like speed or distance when I have made an assumption about the object that turns out to be incorrect. For example, it is easy to misinterpret the heading of the other object, even when you can identify it as a single engine general aviation aircraft. Military pilots are exposed to situations that I have never seen from an aircraft and would therefore be much better at interpreting, say, a fighter in a steep bank with high thrust applied. They know the cues to look for to get a rough idea of things like speed, heading, distance.

BUT, all bets are off if the object is unidentified. Apparent size is no longer a good indication of distance, rapid angular change is no longer a good indicator of speed in the absence of a reasonable distance estimate, etc. So while I agree with your general point that pilot's are not experts with things they are not expert at, I disagree with your premise that pilots are not expert with things they do all the time just because there is a checklist to cover the eventuality.

 

[Ann K]

Humans are simply not very good at judging speeds beyond the narrow range in we and the animals around us crawl, walk and run.

Humans in aircraft also lack the visual clues, the details of landscape that help earthbound people estimate speeds on the ground. Even then, unless people on the ground are estimating something moving on the ground compared to features on the ground, they're pretty bad at it.

 

[Ann K]

Pilots probably are better at judging speed & distance than, say, a shopkeeper.

Pilots are probably better at judging high speeds or long distances. But the tailor is likely to be better at judging fractions of an inch, and the grocer better at judging the weight of a bag of lemons.

When I go out to my mailbox every day, I can see a red stop sign at the corner that is approximately a quarter mile away, so that's a distance I'm good at. I can also readily tell you the size of a canvas or a frame. When the kids were in marching band, they could step off five yards with good precision.

Scale matters.

 

[Gary C]

@Stryder - This is helpful as I want to bring out the logical counter-arguments here where we have the luxury of time and a team effort. Obviously I have some work to do before this line of criticism is ready for prime-time.

@Ann K - Scale does indeed matter as it provides context needed to make reasonable estimates about the objects we encounter in daily life. That connects to another thought I had as I was finishing my first post; Does the average person know the difference between visual flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR)?

One of the central elements of US Navy UAP HUD videos is the artificial horizon line at the center of the display. The artificial horizon is there because without being able to see the ground, humans cannot maintain level flight for any length of time. Flying into clouds or precipitation pilots can lose their sense of which way is up. I'm not sure how to relate that directly to the UAP experience so I decided to focus on speed as that seems to be a common element which believers point to as testimonial evidence that it could not have been a bug/bird/balloon/plane that they saw.

 

[illiniflyer]

One of the central elements of US Navy UAP HUD videos is the artificial horizon line at the center of the display. The artificial horizon is there because without being able to see the ground, humans cannot maintain level flight for any length of time. Flying into clouds or precipitation pilots can lose their sense of which way is up. I'm not sure how to relate that directly to the UAP experience so I decided to focus on speed as that seems to be a common element which believers point to as testimonial evidence that it could not have been a bug/bird/balloon/plane that they saw.

Good morning, I'm new here so please forgive me if I come across as a Johnny-come-lately. I saw your original post and decided to make an account. Like you, I do not give wholesale credence just because someone flew in the military (or for that matter, served in the IC).

Regrading the HUD and Navy videos: the videos are from the ATFLIR, not the HUD. Your point about the artificial horizon is important for the HUD. To your earlier points about emergency procedures, you're mostly correct... though a non-working instrument is not an emergency. It's just not standard. For example, an F/A-18 without a working HUD would fly a straight-in approach rather than the normal Case I recovery (overhead the ship at 800', left 180º break, slow to approach speed, descent do 600', etc.). A typical paddles call would be something like "two-oh-three, Rhino ball, 3.3, negative HUD." In the situations where I've been behind a jet like that, we would do a little teasing by making our call "two-four, Greyhound ball, 5.4, negative HUD" even though we did never had a HUD.

Regarding airspeed: Carrier pilots use AoA and not airspeed. I never referenced airspeed when landing on the carrier, but referencing AoA was a must. We first use an AoA indicator to get a precise measure of AoA and the AoA indexer (the green, amber, red display) when we're visually looking at the ball. The F/A-18 also has the "E" in the HUD that gives a good indication of relative AoA. If the AoA indicator got stuck and you didn't know it, the situation could be disastrous (see the T-2 Buckeye crash). But if we did know that the AoA was stuck, it was great for the pilot... it meant that we would get an automatic "OK" grade for the approach.

My own thoughts: Military pilots are trained to their specific mission. The aircraft systems/sensors are made for specific purposes. Asking an aircrew to do something beyond that mission, or expecting a sensor to give you information in a way it wasn't intended to do, is going to be hit or miss. The idea that military pilots are "highly-trained" in matters unrelated to specific military flying is a bit ludicrous in my mind.

Thanks for having me.

 

[Gary C]

Good morning, I'm new here so please forgive me if I come across as a Johnny-come-lately. I saw your original post and decided to make an account. Like you, I do not give wholesale credence just because someone flew in the military (or for that matter, served in the IC).

Regrading the HUD and Navy videos: the videos are from the ATFLIR, not the HUD. Your point about the artificial horizon is important for the HUD. To your earlier points about emergency procedures, you're mostly correct... though a non-working instrument is not an emergency. It's just not standard. For example, an F/A-18 without a working HUD would fly a straight-in approach rather than the normal Case I recovery (overhead the ship at 800', left 180º break, slow to approach speed, descent do 600', etc.). A typical paddles call would be something like "two-oh-three, Rhino ball, 3.3, negative HUD." In the situations where I've been behind a jet like that, we would do a little teasing by making our call "two-four, Greyhound ball, 5.4, negative HUD" even though we did never had a HUD.

Regarding airspeed: Carrier pilots use AoA and not airspeed. I never referenced airspeed when landing on the carrier, but referencing AoA was a must. We first use an AoA indicator to get a precise measure of AoA and the AoA indexer (the green, amber, red display) when we're visually looking at the ball. The F/A-18 also has the "E" in the HUD that gives a good indication of relative AoA. If the AoA indicator got stuck and you didn't know it, the situation could be disastrous (see the T-2 Buckeye crash). But if we did know that the AoA was stuck, it was great for the pilot... it meant that we would get an automatic "OK" grade for the approach.

My own thoughts: Military pilots are trained to their specific mission. The aircraft systems/sensors are made for specific purposes. Asking an aircrew to do something beyond that mission, or expecting a sensor to give you information in a way it wasn't intended to do, is going to be hit or miss. The idea that military pilots are "highly-trained" in matters unrelated to specific military flying is a bit ludicrous in my mind.

Thanks for having me.

Very useful and welcome to Metabunk!

The UFOlogists' are clearly committing an appeal to authority fallacy and if you point that out will often attempt to obfuscate their error by claiming the debunkers "are disrespecting our military" even though as I have noted, many of their fellow travelers in the believing community are consistently accusing the 'the military' of hiding the truth and participating in the cover-up.

 

[Leekster]

Former Navy Fighter pilot, 777 Airline Captain here.

These conclusions are correct in my opinion.
My problem has been with the description that Naval Aviators are "trained observers".
Observe what? Yes, we can estimate ranges to a known object like another F18. Based on thousands of hours of experience I can usually make a fairly accurate estimate of another fighter aircraft's energy state, speed, from a few miles away with just my eyes.

What we are trained NOT to do is make assumptions on size, speed and distance based on an unknown object. It's simply not possible. We are trained in many different types of optical illusions and how our senses can be easily fooled. Lots of aircraft and aviators have been lost because of different sensory phenomenon. Our aviators are mostly sharp folks that exist in a bell curve. All over the map. Some are super religious, some are superstitious, some are total math nerds and others are art majors. They are not all Neil Armstrong. Pilots are a diverse group of humans with their own unique biases.

The public likes to believe our military equipment is advanced beyond basic understanding. It really isn't. Certain capabilities like weapon ranges and sensor capabilities are classified to make it more difficult for our competitors to counter, not because they operate outside the laws of physics. Many times the equipment can be degraded or in need of maintenance. It's not a combat simulator where everything works as advertised all the time. All aircraft, ships, tanks, submarines are usually operating with some maintenance items that possibly effect performance. They are complex machines requiring many hours of maintenance for every hour of actual operation. Let's not even get into electronic countermeasures, camouflage and jamming...
The bottom line is just because a radar said something accelerated to Mach10 and went straight up, doesn't mean it's true. You would want multiple sensor sources to confirm the data.

 

[Gary C]

Former Navy Fighter pilot, 777 Airline Captain here.

These conclusions are correct in my opinion.
My problem has been with the description that Naval Aviators are "trained observers".
Observe what? Yes, we can estimate ranges to a known object like another F18. Based on thousands of hours of experience I can usually make a fairly accurate estimate of another fighter aircraft's energy state, speed, from a few miles away with just my eyes.

What we are trained NOT to do is make assumptions on size, speed and distance based on an unknown object. It's simply not possible. We are trained in many different types of optical illusions and how our senses can be easily fooled. Lots of aircraft and aviators have been lost because of different sensory phenomenon. Our aviators are mostly sharp folks that exist in a bell curve. All over the map. Some are super religious, some are superstitious, some are total math nerds and others are art majors. They are not all Neil Armstrong. Pilots are a diverse group of humans with their own unique biases.

The public likes to believe our military equipment is advanced beyond basic understanding. It really isn't. Certain capabilities like weapon ranges and sensor capabilities are classified to make it more difficult for our competitors to counter, not because they operate outside the laws of physics. Many times the equipment can be degraded or in need of maintenance. It's not a combat simulator where everything works as advertised all the time. All aircraft, ships, tanks, submarines are usually operating with some maintenance items that possibly effect performance. They are complex machines requiring many hours of maintenance for every hour of actual operation. Let's not even get into electronic countermeasures, camouflage and jamming...
The bottom line is just because a radar said something accelerated to Mach10 and went straight up, doesn't mean it's true. You would want multiple sensor sources to confirm the data.

More helpful info, thank you.

Off the top of your head, what sensory illusions are covered or emphasized in pilot training?
Which come up most often in discussion with other aviators?

 

[Leekster]

More helpful info, thank you.

Off the top of your head, what sensory illusions are covered or emphasized in pilot training?
Which come up most often in discussion with other aviators?

It's quite a big subject.
I'm sure you can imagine the visual and vestibular issues with launching and landing from/to an aircraft carrier at night.

Other visual illusions related to making it difficult to judge distance and closure to other aircraft at night while joining on a tanker or during an intercept.

My first deployment we lost an F18 at night when a pilot became fixated on manipulating his radar and crashed into the water.
I was in the middle of several near death experiences with near misses with other aircraft at night. One so close I heared the other fighters engines as he passed 10-20 feet over my canopy. Turns out one of my tail lights was out and gave the illusion he was father away than he thought.
One night I put on 2 negative Gs to avoid a perceived collision. Turns out what I thought was one aircraft was actually two slowly separating from each other giving the impression of one aircraft coming straight at me as they lights separated from each other.

I remember an F16 scraping the ground of a mountain ridge because the pilot thought some bushes were trees. The size difference caused an optical illusion.

An A4 on a visual bombing of some 55 gallon drums thought they were railroad cars and struck the ground.

An E-2C off the catapult at night never climbed and crashed in the water in front of the ship due to an inner ear phenomenon that makes you feel you are pitching up when accelerating forward rapidly.

Most Navy carrier pilots can give you several stories from personal experience.

 

[JMartJr]

We are trained in many different types of optical illusions and how our senses can be easily fooled.

I wonder what you think of the hypothesis that the Gimbal and Go Fast videos might have been saved and shared specifically as training aides on the subject of identifying illusions or misinterpretations of what the equipment is showing. The names of the two videos, particularly Gimbal, hint that they were saved by somebody who recognized what was going on in each...

 

[Leekster]

I wonder what you think of the hypothesis that the Gimbal and Go Fast videos might have been saved and shared specifically as training aides on the subject of identifying illusions or misinterpretations of what the equipment is showing. The names of the two videos, particularly Gimbal, hint that they were saved by somebody who recognized what was going on in each...

Unfortunately, I don't have knowledge if that was how they were used but I can tell you that the first time I saw go fast I thought it was an obvious parallax illusion and with gimbal(if it's the one I think it is) that the sensor had reached it's limit and it wasn't some object suddenly accelerating away.

I enjoy these case studies. Great stuff Mick is doing. Especially with this site. Some brilliant folks here just interested in fleshing out the truth, where ever that takes us.

 

[JMartJr]

with gimbal(if it's the one I think it is) that the sensor had reached it's limit and it wasn't some object suddenly accelerating away.

I think you're thinking of Flir1 (aka Nimitz, aka Tick Tack) that shows the target exiting to the left when lock is lost just as the camera zooms in. Gimbal is the rotating one!

 

[deirdre]

This is helpful as I want to bring out the logical counter-arguments here where we have the luxury of time and a team effort. Obviously I have some work to do before this line of criticism is ready for prime-time.

we've had other threads on this topic that might be helpful. ex from a quick google search (metabunk expert testimony)
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-highly-trained-expert-fallacy-counterexamples.11308/

or
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ho...-possibly-misinterpret-things-they-see.13341/

Article:

How Can Highly Trained Military Pilots Possibly Misinterpret Things They See?

Source: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/how-can-highly-trained-military-pilots-possibly-misinterpret-things-they-see.13341/

 

[TheCholla]

Overall, eye-witness estimations regarding anything will be subject to errors. This is why eye-witness testimony can be bad evidence and should not be relied upon unless it is verified with other objective evidence.

I think this a reasonable approach when investigating a case : rather than ignoring eye-witness testimony completely (because bad evidence, unreliable etc), it can be verified upon objective data (the videos and numbers on the screen) and used as a piece of evidence to reconstruct the puzzle.

Eye-witness testimony from the crew who filmed a UAP event is interesting to have, rather than no context at all. Provided we ask the question, is what they report plausible, based on what we seen on screen and the more general context (like meteorological parameters)?

For example:

- Gimbal, they describe tracking a slow object on radar, within 10 Nm, going against high wind, that seemed to reversed direction abruptly (going against, then with the wind without radius of turn). That testimony is not disconnected from the video, given the lines of sight and 3-D reconstructions of the event. This is what an object would do at that range from the F-18, when going against the wind. This has to be disclosed in a transparent investigation of the case.

- FLIR1: Lt Underwood, WSO on that flight, also reports tracking a slow mover, after going investigating one of the objects detected by the Princeton, drifting north-south at ~100 kts, at ~25-30k ft altitude (very consistent with wind speed that day in that area and altitude). Lines of sight and 3-D reconstructions retrieve a scenario where this happens too, with some interesting loss in altitude that may explain decreasing elevation angle in the video. Again, the testimony is not out of touch with the video data. Important to disclose too, to avoid missing the explanation entirely.

This approach has been controversial here because of probabilistic considerations, but it's a reasonable approach from which we learn a lot, in my opinion.

 

[jarlrmai]

Gimbal, they describe tracking a slow object on radar, within 10 Nm

There is no mention of distance in the GIMBAL video audio

They also say "that is a fucking drone bro"

One pilot says that is not L+S the other says it is

Which parts of the testimony should be taking as true?

 

[JMartJr]

Eye-witness testimony from the crew who filmed a UAP event is interesting to have, rather than no context at all. Provided we ask the question, is what they report plausible, based on what we seen on screen

Sure, but... (There's always a "sure, but...")

One thing to remember is that the witness testimony may and often does assert things not in evidence in the video or other hard evidence. Perhaps the most well known ongoing example of this is the "suddenly it shot off into the sky at hypersonic speeds" testimony, accompanying a video which ends before the object departs at all. (Or, as in the case of Flir1/Nimitz, drifts slowly out of frame.)

A related caution: while testimony can provide context, it can also contaminate the more substantial and objective evidence by providing a SUBJECTIVE context that can be in error, encouraging the interpretation of the evidence to conform to the witness's interpretation. Witness assertion that "That is definitely not a plane, bro!" is so often applied to videos of a plane (and similar) is so common as to become almost an in joke here, and does not provide useful context!

That's not an argument for disregarding testimony that accompanies videos or other hard evidence -- but a reminder to handle it with care and skepticism. Which I suppose most all of us here already know -- but it can't hurt to put it on record...

 

[TheCholla]

There is no mention of distance in the GIMBAL video audio

They also say "that is a fucking drone bro"

One pilot says that is not L+S the other says it is

Which parts of the testimony should be taking as true?

The real testimony for Gimbal is the Range Fouler report (partially redacted but informative).

 

[TheCholla]

That's not an argument for disregarding testimony that accompanies videos or other hard evidence -- but a reminder to handle it with care and skepticism. Which I suppose most all of us here already know -- but it can't hurt to put it on record...

Everything needs to be handled with care and skepticism. Including discarding soft data as pilot or instrument error when correspondence is found in the hard data. It's a matter of balance.

 

[Gary C]

Which brings us back to the point of this thread: "testimony" frequently includes unsupported assumptions, unreliable estimates, opinions, illusions, logical errors, contaminated memories of past events and a host of other problems that complicate the task of ascertaining what was actually witnessed by the observer. The believers persist in trying to treat all of this as 'data' when in fact significant parts of it are actually the noise from which we must try to extract a signal. A mandatory step in that process requires identifying the inconsistencies and errors and crossing them off one at a time until we have some level of confidence as to what the reliable data actually are. Once you have that, you may have something to analyze.

 

[Gary C]

Everything needs to be handled with care and skepticism. Including discarding soft data as pilot or instrument error when correspondence is found in the hard data. It's a matter of balance.

It's a matter of rigor.

 

[JMartJr]

That's not an argument for disregarding testimony that accompanies videos or other hard evidence -- but a reminder to handle it with care and skepticism. Which I suppose most all of us here already know -- but it can't hurt to put it on record...

To be as honest as possible, I suspect that my own tendency is to be overly-dismissive of the "witness testimony" part of any set of evidence. While recognizing that this risks throwing out some good data to avoid taking the bad onboard, to me that seems a more acceptable risk than accepting false data in order to avoid maybe missing a real bit. Accepting bad data leads to wrong conclusions, not gathering in all the good data in today's case risks it taking longer to get to the truth.

 

[Leekster]

I think you're thinking of Flir1 (aka Nimitz, aka Tick Tack) that shows the target exiting to the left when lock is lost just as the camera zooms in. Gimbal is the rotating one!

Ahhh yes. Thanks.
My impression was that was the sensor rotating to keep tracking? Not the object itself. Also, just looked like an IR track of aircraft engines at range?
I was never a FLIR guy. Didn't have the IRST or Lantirn pod on my jets. I have seen some nice explanation videos.
Interesting these things get so much traction.
"You can't prove it's not aliens!"