Mick vs Marik (rotation glare gimbal)

[analiennamed]

I can't make heads from tails in the debate between mick and marik about rotation glare on the gimbal. Marik postulates " Not a single one of the world's foremost experts (let alone aviators) has seen anything like "Gimbal." It's 100% unprecedented and anomalous." and expounds about mick's theory being unfounded, but mick seems to be hanging on.

here is latest in the dialogue between mick and marik:

Source: https://x.com/MickWest/status/1853488469370409289


Source: https://x.com/MvonRen/status/1853467352849145872


^^ they have been at this for months (years?). not trying to stir the pot or take sides, maybe this isn't the right forum? just curious why they're going in circles the way they are.

 

[jarlrmai]

Marik insists Mick is wrong, Mick does not think he is, he seems to contact experts (perhaps using his role as journalist to get in the door, where other can not) he presents Mick's theory then he takes responses to his cherry picked questions, which are often (unintentional?) slight misrepresentations of the real, complicated theory then he posts them to Twitter.

Gimbal is very complicated I've spoken with people who both think Mick is wrong and people that think he is right, but actually when we discussed it they did not really understand the theory, it takes more than a surface view to "get" it.

Marik is fairly aggressive in the way he "argues." Mick is fairly passive in his responses, he's not rising to the bait.

Marik chooses to do so over Twitter, where it is much harder to have any sort of real scientific discussion debate than in a classic forum such as Metabunk, but where Mick cannot be seen to just ignore things by the peanut gallery. Things are out of order, new threads and things can be stated in additional tweets.

Marikis not technical, a lot of the things he argues against are that expert X says this or that, he does have a co-author though who has posted here, but the debates end up dead ended because there's just a fundamental lack of ability to demonstrate things past what has already been shown because we are dealing with a complex issue with a classified piece of military hardware.

Mariks is less trying to investigate this, more it's feels like a "crusade" against the Gimbal theory where seems very heavily invested in making it publically apparent that Mick is discredited over this specific video to his audience.

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

Do we actually know the make and model of the camera that recorded the famous video?

 

[jarlrmai]

Do we actually know the make and model of the camera that recorded the famous video?

Where have you been?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ASQ-228_ATFLIR

 

[NorCal Dave]

Do we actually know the make and model of the camera that recorded the famous video?

As @jarlrmai pointed out above, yes. It's a Raytheon ATFLIR targeting/navigating pod. And as jarlrmai also pointed out above, it's all very complicated with a lot of details. And some things about the ATFLIR are still classified. However, Mick's basic contention is that the apparent rotation of the object is in fact the various lens and mirrors inside the ATFLIR pod rotating to keep track of the object as the F18 moves.

There is a simple Sitrec video here showing the F18 with an oversized comic like ATFLIR pod so one can see what is happening:

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

As the target moves in relation to the moving F18, the optics in the pod can track it to a certain point then have to reset to continue tracking. The reset causes the apparent rotation of the object, as represented by the blue box around the object in the video.

Imagine watching a glowing orb circling around you to the right as you sit in a chair. You can move your eyes to follow it for a while, then you'll have to start moving your head. Eventually, you'll have turned your head and eyes so far to the right, you can't keep tracking it, so you have to reset, and spin your head all the way back as far left as you can to then begin tracking the orb.

The ATFLIR is doing something similar with its movable lenses and mirrors kinda like your head and eyes. At some point it can no longer keep moving in a certain direction and has to reset. In the case of the ATFLIR, the lens and mirrors rotate internally to reset, thus creating the illusion that the tracked object rotated.

Marik contents that the GIMBAL object is likely a NHI UAP rotating in a way no earthly craft could. Therefore, Mick is wrong and to that end this latest X feed from Marik cherry picks some emails from anonymous experts saying Mick is wrong. Sorta.

Mick's full explanation for what's happening in the ATFLIR here:


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

 

[JMartJr]

In one sense, whether or not it is glare is secondary.

WHATEVER it is, the rotation is always associated with camera movements, demonstrated by the "Four Observables" Mick enumerated HERE:
Source: https://youtu.be/qsEjV8DdSbs

There is no rotation caused by the aircraft banking.
A camera bump precedes each rotation.
Other camera artifacts in the video ALSO rotate with the target.
The calculated derotation of the system matches the seeming rotation of the target.

It is clearly a camera artifact, with the apparent rotation of the target caused by the rotation of the camera. Whether it is glare (which seems reasonable) or whether there is really no such thing as glare in these systems and the camera artifact is something else, that does not change the fact that the perceived rotation is caused by the camera rotating on its gimbal mount in a video called Gimbal. If Marik thinks it can't be glare, then the ball is in their court to figure out what camera artifact it is instead. But no argument about whether it is glare or some other artifact can change that the Four Observables show that the video does not show rotation of a physical object of that shape, but do show a camera artifact that seems to rotate whenever, and only whenever, the camera does.

That said, the claim that IR systems don't generate glare does not seem to hold water -- if this ain't glare, my friends, it looks pretty dang much like glare!


Source: https://youtu.be/Jr1cfpos6vo?t=68

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

As @jarlrmai pointed out above, yes. It's a Raytheon ATFLIR targeting/navigating pod. And as jarlrmai also pointed out above, it's all very complicated with a lot of details. And some things about the ATFLIR are still classified. However, Mick's basic contention is that the apparent rotation of the object is in fact the various lens and mirrors inside the ATFLIR pod rotating to keep track of the object as the F18 moves.

That contention (bolded) requires evidence though beyond his own Sitrec tool.

Do we actually know for a fact that the technology in question does work as Mick assumes?

Didn't he have a Raytheon FLIR expert on one video chat? What did that fellow say?

 

[jarlrmai]

We read the patent, it's probably worth reading the full gimbal thread.

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

I know patents, but I'm just asking what actual validated proof we have in technology terms (again--not Mick's tools, Raytheon's) that supports Micks assertations. Production/to market products can diverge a fair bit from original patents.

 

[jarlrmai]

We have the patent and the leaked operators manuals for the device, when we apply via simulation the things we read in them to the situation we see in the video with the theory that the 'object' shown is a camera artifact we see a match in the simulation to the video.

 

[Mick West]

I know patents, but I'm just asking what actual validated proof we have in technology terms (again--not Mick's tools, Raytheon's) that supports Micks assertations. Production/to market products can diverge a fair bit from original patents.

Can you be more specific about what exact claims you feel are lacking support?

There's a lot unknown about how the ATFLIR operates, and we know it has changed over time. It is not a solved case. But the rotating glare (or rotating camera artifact of some sort) hypothesis is a potential explanation that has not been refuted, and provides a far simpler explanation than non-human technology.

 

[Mendel]

I know patents, but I'm just asking what actual validated proof we have in technology terms (again--not Mick's tools, Raytheon's) that supports Micks assertations. Production/to market products can diverge a fair bit from original patents.

Do you doubt that the ATFLIR has a rotating head, which can be clearly seen on pictures? Do you doubt it moved via a gimbal? Have you educated yourself on "gimbal lock"?

Have you observed the video and noticed the slight bump on the whole frame each time before the target rotates?

The assumption is that the camera "eye" is on a gimbal; and it must move according to geometric principles to track the target; we know the bearing toward the target thanks to the data embedded in the display. The patent describes a fine control with mirrors; when you add that to the gimbal geometry, the simulation tracks with the video, which strongly suggests the assumptions are correct.

And there's really no other way to explain the camera bumps.

 

[NorCal Dave]

(again--not Mick's tools, Raytheon's)

I think, Marik and especially his co-author Peings, are using Sitrec, Mick's tool as you call it, to prove their point. They use Sitrec to try to incorporate the supposed witness testimony involved in the case. That is, Peings and Marik used Sitrect to show what the 2nd anecdote from Graves and his recollection of some sort of radar recording he saw after the incident would look like. A craft of some kind 4-8 NM away defying physics.

Sitrec is not a tool that proves only Mick's theory, it's a tool anyone can use to try and prove their theory.

As for Raytheon, I doubt they give a rat's ass about GIMBAL. It's a little niche video in the niche world of UFOs and a few skeptics. Raytheon, or RTX as it's now known has other things to work on:

More than 90% of Raytheon's revenues were obtained from military contracts and, as of 2012, it was the fifth-largest military contractor in the world.[4]​ As of 2015, it was the third-largest defense contractor in the United States by defense revenue.[5]​

For the fiscal year 2017, Raytheon reported earnings of US$2.024 billion, with an annual revenue of US$25.348 billion, an increase of 5.1% over the previous fiscal cycle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon

It's likely nobody at Raytheon is concerned that a few people think an ATFLIR recorded an alien. They are not going to spend time and effort or reveal any secrets to settle a dispute between some UFOologists and debunkers.

That said, the basic way the ATFLIR operates is generally understood. I don't think Marik and Peings dispute that the lens and mirrors move in the pod to track a target, and that movement will hit a physical limit, causing the assembly to rotate in the pod to continue tracking. Their main argument is that the craft is very close and defying physics, per the 2nd hand testimony of Graves.

EDIT: While there are 100s of pages over multiple threads on here about GIMBAL, here is a short one just about Rennenkampff's theory:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pe...aths-for-the-january-2015-“gimbal”-uap.12990/

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

Can you be more specific about what exact claims you feel are lacking support?

There's a lot unknown about how the ATFLIR operates, and we know it has changed over time. It is not a solved case. But the rotating glare (or rotating camera artifact of some sort) hypothesis is a potential explanation that has not been refuted, and provides a far simpler explanation than non-human technology.

It's kinda simple, I thought? Let me restate.

As far as I understand, your model relies on the assumption that some mechanism within the camera device causes the rotation. You even call it a potential explanation. Not a proven explanation.

But it's the variable--this presumed function--that "solves" your equation, correct?

Forget NHI. That's downstream of what the object is or is not. If a, or the key, piece of equation is based on you plugging in that variable because it would complete your equation, but is unsourced and not proven, wouldn't you have to prove with evidence that your presumed variable is sound?

The answer is never to solve something; it's to solve it correctly against available known evidence, and the equation and formula always revises on every new piece of data.

What evidence supports the claim that a rotation-mechanism scheme exists?

 

[Mick West]

What evidence supports the claim that a rotation-mechanism scheme exists?

Didn't you watch the video? We know there's a dero mechanism. We know dero can rotate glare. We know the amount and speed of the rotation match what is needed to keep the camera pointed at the target (albeit in steps). There are unknown details, but the basics seem solid.

Please look into it a bit more, and ask a more technical question. We've been doing this for years.

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

Didn't you watch the video? We know there's a dero mechanism. We know dero can rotate glare. We know the amount and speed of the rotation match what is needed to keep the camera pointed at the target (albeit in steps). There are unknown details, but the basics seem solid.

Please look into it a bit more, and ask a more technical question. We've been doing this for years.

I'm just respectfully asking for some Raytheon collateral or documentation that supports the assertation that this functionality or design on the device exists, to simply validate that part of the function and your proposed solution.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I'm just respectfully asking for some Raytheon collateral or documentation that supports the assertation that this functionality or design on the device exists, to simply validate that part of the function and your proposed solution.

Here's a video about the Raytheon ATFLIR. Note at the very beginning the end of the pod ROTATES in 2 different axis. The entire end rotates in a yaw like manner, while the "ball" on the end rotates perpendicular to the yaw axis. At ~3:16 in, it shows the mirrors, at least what is known about them publicly.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxPNfYuNuaM&t=12s


And here is Mick talking to a former Raytheon ATFLIR guy, showing the pod and describing how it rotates and the mirrors. Should be queued up to disscusion of the pod at 06:18:


Source: https://youtu.be/FGHeu5GeR-0?si=JGvXOyNX1WYsP2dK&t=378


Lastly, here are some pages from an actual Raytheon ATFLIR brochure (who knew?). Note the ROTATION mentioned:

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/rtn_sas_ds_atflir-raytheon-an-asq-228-brochure-pdf.44933/


The fact that the Raytheon ATFLIR device rotates in multiple axis isn't really up for debate.

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

Thanks!

 

[Scaramanga]

My two cents worth....

The entire claim that 'Glare is not an artifact of infra-red systems' is misleading, because of course what you are 'seeing' in the infra-red videos is NOT the actual infra-red itself but a conversion of that to visible wavelength image that the eye can see. The glare arises in the post-processing of that image. It's no different to how I can capture an image of some trees on an overcast day and with sufficient fiddling with contrast I can generate an 'aura' around the trees that looks like St. Elmo's fire sort of thing. In fact even just a standard 'enhance' in a tool like Microsoft Photos can add that effect...and to my annoyance often does.

That's exactly what the glare above the trees is in this recent image where I tried to capture the recent comet. It's entirely an artefact...there was no glow above the trees.....

 

[jackfrostvc]

Didn't David Falch (might have butchered his name) have a video up of ATFLIR footage he took of an F-18.
I remember it looked almost exactly like the Gimbal as it flew little further from the camera.
People had commented about that also.

But then for some reason , he took the video down.