NYT: GIMBAL Video of U.S. Navy Jet Encounter with Unknown Object

Gerard

Member
All you get is rought relative temperatures. For example, a contrail, at less than 0°C can appear nearly the same color as a jet exhaust (700°C or more),

How is that even giving rough relative temperatures then, since 0-700 C probably encompasses a large chunk of the temperature range you would see in the world ?

Also what is the reason for this, I thought the range of IR radiation they look at was supposed to provide temperature information.
 

Agent K

Active Member
How is that even giving rough relative temperatures then, since 0-700 C probably encompasses a large chunk of the temperature range you would see in the world ?

Also what is the reason for this, I thought the range of IR radiation they look at was supposed to provide temperature information.

The video was processed to enhance contrast for the operator, not to provide calibrated temperature readings.
 

Gerard

Member
The video was processed to enhance contrast for the operator, not to provide calibrated temperature readings.

So you're saying the sensor is capable of providing better temperature information but the video processing discards it ?

That would seem counterproductive. I would think temperature profiles would be very useful for target identification.

EDIT: I guess that's why the Raytheon engineers said they'd need to see the raw data to better analyze the Nimitz video, but I've never heard of that data getting saved and even if it were I'm sure the public would never see it.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So you're saying the sensor is capable of providing better temperature information but the video processing discards it ?

That would seem counterproductive. I would think temperature profiles would be very useful for target identification.
That's a moot point. Video does not contain temperature information, it only shows rough relative temperatures. It also clips, so any temperature above a certain value will appear as solid black (assuming black hot). There's just no information in this video that tells you the actual temperature.

I suspect duplicitous editing might have been used here. 700°C is the temperature of the exhaust gasses, so he might have been answering a question about that.
 

igoddard

Active Member
Here's a WaPo article from 2012 that points to the possible existence of a fleet of drones that might not be identified by ATC for pilots to thereby instantly identify....

@ https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...149a8c-1949-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html
and http://archive.is/aPnRH

While I can imagine people saying that's a conspiracy theory, well, at least it's a lot more probable than a conspiracy originating on Alpha Centuri.
 

igoddard

Active Member
Yes I completely agree with you. ALL of the audio is relevant to the event. If a police officer is investigating a crash and hears "It looks like a minivan" on the insurance dashboard cam then I don't see why we should ignore that and say it's an out of focus semi-truck.
There's a level of imagery analysis where you actually want to disregard verbal statements. Verbal statements about events and mechanical records of events are distinct modes of record and ought be analyzed along different tracks.

There's certainly reason in a full investigation to analyze mechanical and verbal records together. But the mechanical record is likely to be more reliable as human observation may be more prone to error. Anyone who believes the Gimbal target is an ET aircraft has to assume the, "It's a drone bro," statement was an error, and that it ought to be weeded out of the analysis. So there you go. A mechanical record needs to also be analyzed in isolation to verbal statements, and most of the discourse here has been in that vein of the inquiry, focused on listening to the footage, not the pilots.
 

Agent K

Active Member
Here's a WaPo article from 2012 that points to the possible existence of a fleet of drones that might not be identified by ATC for pilots to thereby instantly identify....

A drone swarm would consist of small drones like Perdix or target drones, not big ones.
 
Last edited:

TheoryQED

Member
There's a level of imagery analysis where you actually want to disregard verbal statements.

Thanks, I understand. I just don't think we can ignore the [allegedly]smaller objects seen on radar (and visible in the alleged longer video) because I doubt that the radar and video can both malfunction simultaneously. But I understand that until we have the longer video, we can totally disregard the witnesses of, and the existence of, said video. And that we can also ignore portions of the audio from the actual event talking about what was on their radar display at the time of recording. (Even though I disagree with all of that)

Anyway, let's talk about the video. So is Dave Falch a FLIR camera expert with similar equipment? Or a relative novice with no expertise and fundamentally different equipment? In this video I think that Falch was misconstrued as being an expert who wanted to prove the glare hypothesis. Mick West says, "Dave has been looking into this for a while, trying to duplicate the effect using FLIR equipment very similar to the that used in the Gimbal video." Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr1cfpos6vo&feature=youtu.be&t=57
(1:00)

However, this FLIR expert does not agree with the jet exhaust/glare rotation hypothesis. Here is an interview in which he says, "It doesn't look like an engine to me. It's much too clear and crisp to be an engine exhaust. There's the absence of any type of wings, any type of propulsion system, any rotors, anything like that. And just the way that it turns to the left and it doesn't vary its heat signature, its original shape, just the way that it rotates like that- I'm thinking it's very coarse... it's coarsely rotating. It doesn't look natural like a plane would bank or roll, that kind of thing. So I can only give you an opinion, but from what I've seen it looks very odd and atypical of what I normally see in the everyday sky. ... To me the object looks crisp. I've put out some videos that show an F-18, trainer jet, stuff like that flying in the sky. And you can see, even at a great distance, that it's a jet." Source- Source: https://youtu.be/58aIq74Xtv0?t=654
(10:52)

I realize he admitted that he is not an expert with military grade equipment, and there could also be a difference in clarity between military and consumer level cameras. However, I don't think this completely discounts his opinion that the object is in focus, appears "clear and crisp" and looks "very unnatural" while rotating. A DSLR camera that is out of focus looks just as blurry as my old iPhone camera when it's equally out of focus. The Gimbal object would need to be severely out of focus to create a blob shape, correct? But then it wouldn't be "clear and crisp" without the engine flares or inconsistent heat variation and spiking that are normally visible with IR videos of exhausts. So my point is that he can't be cited (referenced and used) as an expert with similar equipment when he is misrepresented or insinuated to be in agreement with the exhaust/glare hypothesis, and ALSO be discounted as having no expertise and using completely different equipment when he makes it very clear that he does not agree with the out-of-focus exhaust glare hypothesis.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
So my point is that he can't be cited as an expert with similar equipment when he is misrepresented or insinuated to be in agreement with the exhaust/glare hypothesis,

Mick doesn't say anything like that in his video. Which is why you couldn't quote him saying anything like that.
 

TheoryQED

Member
Mick doesn't say anything like that in his video. Which is why you couldn't quote him saying anything like that.

He insinuates that Dave Falch is a FLIR expert who agrees with the glare/rotation hypothesis and supplied footage to help support it. Saying, "Dave has been looking into this for a while, trying to duplicate the effect using FLIR equipment very similar to the that used in the Gimbal video."

When I say "cite" I mean specifically "using his footage" and insinuating agreement with the glare hypothesis. I should have used the word "referenced"
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
He insinuates that Dave Falch is a FLIR expert who agrees with the glare/rotation hypothesis and supplied footage to help support it.

No. He doesn't. at all.

Conspiracy theorists try to duplicate effects too, to prove effects cant be duplicated. Good Debunkers also try to duplicate effects to prove effects can't be duplicated.

Mick does not insinuate any intention from Dave. and certainly doesn't imply Dave agrees with his engine analysis.

End of discussion.
 

TheoryQED

Member
No. He doesn't. at all.
Conspiracy theorists try to duplicate effects too, to prove effects cant be duplicated. Good Debunkers also try to duplicate effects to prove effects can't be duplicated.

Mick does not insinuate any intention from Dave. and certainly doesn't imply Dave agrees with his engine analysis.
End of discussion.

Ok I see. Thank you for making that important clarification and for shutting down my incorrect paraphrasing so completely. I sincerely apologize for my impressions of the video and also for my incorrect usage of the word "cite" when I really meant "referenced his footage"

So what isn't subjective is that the F-4 phantom footage supplied by Fave Falch and used by Mick West in his video is out of focus and therefore blurry and the shape is distorted into a blob. But I guess the rebuttal will be that Dave Falch is not an expert in military FLIR so he might not know if the Gimbal video is out of focus or not? I just think that a FLIR camera expert would be able to tell if a camera is focused or severely out of focus, but maybe I'm wrong.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
So what isn't subjective is that the F-4 phantom footage supplied by Fave Falch and used by Mick West in his video is out of focus and therefore blurry and the shape is distorted into a blob. But I guess the rebuttal will be that Dave Falch is not an expert in military FLIR so he might not know if the Gimbal video is out of focus or not? I just think that a FLIR camera expert would be able to tell if a camera is focused or severely out of focus, but maybe I'm wrong.

all the blobs look the same to me. Other members would have to comment on your focus or out-of-focus observations.
 

TheoryQED

Member
all the blobs look the same to me. Other members would have to comment on your focus or out-of-focus observations.

I was asked by Mick West to reach out to Dave Falch directly, so I did and here is his direct quote about the Gimbal video-

 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2019-09-11 at 7.50.03 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2019-09-11 at 7.50.03 PM.png
    126.6 KB · Views: 186
  • Screen Shot 2019-09-11 at 7.50.18 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2019-09-11 at 7.50.18 PM.png
    85.6 KB · Views: 195

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Dave Falch said:
From there, communication broke down between us.
Yeah, he stopped talking to me. I was quite happy to continue communication.

Dave Falch said:
I'm pretty sure I the object is not out of focus, due to the clouds being in focus in the background. I'm pretty sure I told Mick that, but he ran with the defocused theory and assumed he solved the mystery behind the Gimbal video.

Dave never showed what defocussed clouds would look like, as there were none in his videos. He said the focus adjustment was, as I remember, a "nudge".

He says it does not look like a jet exhaust, despite it looking almost exactly like the jet exhaust in his own video.
 
Hi guys,

Like I showed/demonstrated earlier in this thread, we see at times a similar glare in the Flir-1 video. Reason why I superimposed both videos (Gimbal and Flir-1) for my demonstration.

That being said and if my demonstration/comparison could be considered as unambiguous evidence that we are seeing a glare in the Gimbal video and a similar glare at times in the Flir-1 video, glares are just glares. In other words, a glare and/or a heat signature (without a veiling glare) are not like fingerprints. A sky lantern can look exactly like a helicopter heat signature once the fuselage/outline is not visible anymore. You'll see a spherical blob of heat in both cases.

I can show/prove it if asked.

What I am trying to say is that if two glares or two heat signatures look exactly the same, this does not mean anything other than there's a heat source radiating heat in the FoV. Confirmation bias are never too far out...

Cheers,
Chris
 
Last edited:

TheoryQED

Member
Dave never showed what defocussed clouds would look like, as there were none in his videos. He said the focus adjustment was, as I remember, a "nudge".

He says it does not look like a jet exhaust, despite it looking almost exactly like the jet exhaust in his own video.

Interesting, so if we had a video of a jet exhaust with clouds behind it and it was going in and out of focus would that help?

And Falch's point about them looking different is more about being in/out of focus and the heat variations or engine spiking where the F4 video moves slightly around the edges, but the Gimbal video doesn't seem to vary in shape or intensity at all.
 
Now let me show you an example

In the MWIR, the glare (imo) really looks like what we see at times in the Flir-1 video and in the Gimbal video as well:
Metabunk 2019-09-12 06-12-06.jpg
Source: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/124f/0ac4ea7f03fa5f9e9d0864075082deefe616.pdf

Yes it its an aircraft, so the confirmation bias in this situation is to claim: this is the glare/heat signature of an airplane, therefore, the Gimbal video shows an airplane...wish life was so simple too...but it isn't.


Cheers,
Chris
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Interesting, so if we had a video of a jet exhaust with clouds behind it and it was going in and out of focus would that help?
If it was a similar distance, with simular lighting and glare, yes.

And Falch's point about them looking different is more about being in/out of focus and the heat variations or engine spiking where the F4 video moves slightly around the edges, but the Gimbal video doesn't seem to vary in shape or intensity at all.
Have you watched it recently? It has quite significant changes in shape, especially as it rotates.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCt837R2Sbs

Metabunk 2019-09-12 06-18-39.jpg Metabunk 2019-09-12 06-16-55.jpg Metabunk 2019-09-12 06-17-09.jpg
 

TheoryQED

Member
If it was a similar distance, with similar lighting and glare, yes.
Ok I asked Falch to try to get a shot like that, but it may take a while to capture.

Have you watched it recently? It has quite significant changes in shape, especially as it rotates.

View attachment 38326 View attachment 38323 View attachment 38325

Yes I have and the craft certainly does change shape over the course of the video. But this could be caused by the rotation of the craft and/or the result of the F-18 viewing it from different angles, and the outer border does not seem to be out of focus or show pulsating or heat spiking from the engine like the blurry F4 phantom footage. Do you have any plans to recreate the "Gimbal need not be moving" gif, or can you please let me know which program you used to create that so I can try to play around with it? I still think that even if a plane were moving directly away from the camera, we would be able to detect horizontal movement at about halfway around the semi-circle made by the F-18.
 
Hi everyone,

Mick or anyone here who could help out, have you guys figured out why the de-rotation in the Flir-1 video does not "affect" the target the same way (does not rotate as much if it does slightly rotate at times) it did in the Gimbal video?

You guys probably noticed that the de-rotation caused a slight break-lock of the auto-tracking system in the Gimbal video and a "bigger/longer" one in the Flir-1 video.

Flir-1:
Source: https://imgur.com/a/KsyeXdA



Cheers,
Chris
 

Agent K

Active Member
Mick or anyone here who could help out, have you guys figured out why the de-rotation in the Flir-1 video does not "affect" the target the same way (does not rotate as much if it does slightly rotate at times) it did in the Gimbal video?

You guys probably noticed that the de-rotation caused a slight break-lock of the auto-tracking system in the Gimbal video and a "bigger/longer" one in the Flir-1 video.

I wouldn't expect it to be identical. The elevation angles were different, the videos were captured 11 years apart so the camera may not be identical, etc.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick or anyone here who could help out, have you guys figured out why the de-rotation in the Flir-1 video does not "affect" the target the same way (does not rotate as much if it does slightly rotate at times) it did in the Gimbal video?
In addition to Agent K's points, I think the shape of the Flir1 probably reflects the underlying geometry of the object (plane) much more than the Gimbal video, which is dominated by the glare.

Compare with the Chilean UF case,

Note here the shape is determined by largely featureless blobs centered on the engines.

 

Agent K

Active Member
In addition to Agent K's points, I think the shape of the Flir1 probably reflects the underlying geometry of the object (plane) much more than the Gimbal video, which is dominated by the glare.

Right, I was addressing the break-lock, not the rotation of the glare. By the time the Flir1 video has gimbal lock, the target is heading to the left and maybe towards the camera, so there's no glare.
 

Getoffthisplanet

Active Member
Was there ever any discussion addressing these artifacts?

They are seen only during the "rotations", being most noticeable on the largest, final rotation:


They look kind of like interlacing artifacts and seem to occur only on the track gate and the object.

Is this an indication of two cameras at work? The IR being composited over the TV image?

At the risk of kicking TTSA's, nearing dead, horse further into the waiting arms of potential investors, I'm just curious.
 

Agent K

Active Member
Was there ever any discussion addressing these artifacts?

They are seen only during the "rotations", being most noticeable on the largest, final rotation:


They look kind of like interlacing artifacts and seem to occur only on the track gate and the object.

Is this an indication of two cameras at work? The IR being composited over the TV image?

At the risk of kicking TTSA's, nearing dead, horse further into the waiting arms of potential investors, I'm just curious.

The original raw video was interlaced. Fast motion makes the interlacing artifacts worse.
 

igoddard

Active Member
Here is CNN's iteration of the recent "Navy Admits UFO Videos are Real" narrative. Most troubling is now the visual presentation with background narration conflates all three TTSA videos with the UFO David Fravor saw. So media reports have now gone from misleading to even more misleading...


We've been left to pick up the pieces of the media's fluff journalism, having to tell ten thousand misled people online that the Gimbal UFO was not what Fravor saw. And now the Go Fast video may also be confused with what Fravor saw.

Curiously, since 2017 major media have been reporting that the U.S. Military (Pentagon or DoD) has released these UFO videos from an official UFO-investigation office, AATIP. I don't recall at any point media reports suggesting uncertainty as to the authenticity of the videos or of their being unidentified phenomena. Yet these new reports imply there was such doubt, but now their authenticity has been confirmed because the Navy said what we've been told the DoD has said since 2017. The CNN anchor in the video above asks:
So they are actually implying that the news at hand is that doubt about the authenticity of the videos has finally been resolved. But that's not a coherent narrative because here was no credible doubt of their authenticity before this latest Navy statement. So it seems this latest TTSA-infomercial cycle is a big fat nothing burger, with all the dressings.
 
Last edited:

igoddard

Active Member
The easiest way to get some perspective on this is to note that the clouds never get any closer, even when the jet is heading directly for them at 240 kts.

It's difficult to wrap my head around. There's are very narrow field of view (0.75°). The object and the jet are both moving, and probably not in straight lines

Starting at frame 0 the clouds take 67 frames, or 2.23 seconds to cross the field of view, it's at a bit of an angle so that about 0.75° in 2 seconds, or 0.375°/sec
Starting at frame 400 it takes 103
600 - 758

Total cloud movement is about 6° to 7°. total camera rotation is 60° (54 to -6). So the camera rotates about 10x the rate the object is moving relative to the clouds, angularly.

In the first 300 frames (10 seconds), the heading changes from 54° to 40°, 14 degrees, or 1.4° per second. about 4.28 minutes for a full turn.

Air speed is 241 Knots, 277mph, so in 10 seconds the jet would have travelled 0.77 miles.

If we take the target position as essentially fixed (if it's far away), then the heading change is the actual turn rate of the jet and so would travel a circle of circumference 277/60/60*360/1.4 = 19.8 miles

Adding this all together in a VERY simple GeoGebra sim with a non-moving UFO seems to indicate the UFO is around 12-15 miles away



Here the circle is the path of the jet. The green line is the original line of sight to the UFO. The pink line is the Line of sight to the UFO, so the angle between them is the angular movement of the clouds behind the UFO. When the Jet moves though 60° the cloud angle moves about 6°

Notice the speed of movement of the pink line, it starts out moving smoothly, but then slows down and essentially stops as the Jet Heading (black arrow) crosses over it. Just like in the video.

This is making some gross simplifications about the turn rate and path of the jet, but I reckon it's in the ballpark.
I'm thinking your demo shows the Gimbal target is about 11 miles away. Using the Gimbal-video screen data,



which typically gives a Calibrated Airspeed (CAS) of 240 knots and Mach 0.58, and plugging that into the Aviation Calculator

@ http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html#CASMachTASEAS

tells us that the Navy jet was traveling 402 MPH. The Gimbal video is 34 seconds, rounding down to 30 seconds that means the jet traveled (402/60) / 2 = 3.35 miles during the duration of the video. Therefore, the flight path in the model is ~3.4 miles. And therefore, the target is about 10.7 miles away...



Now, given that the ATFLIR is at maximum telescopic extension, this makes me question if the target is actually as large as a fighter jet. This footage where we see the zoom increase to bring jets into clarity was taken from 6 nautical miles, which is 6.9 miles distance, from which the jets can be well articulated...


But I can't tell where in the different screen data on that earlier ATFLIR model we can know how to compare its degree of telescopic extension to that in the Gimbal footage. But given the Gimbal ATFLIR is at maximum extension, my hunch is the Gimbal target may be a little guy, smaller than a jet fighter, more like a small jet propelled UAV.
 

igoddard

Active Member
The easiest way to get some perspective on this is to note that the clouds never get any closer, even when the jet is heading directly for them at 240 kts.

It's difficult to wrap my head around. There's are very narrow field of view (0.75°). The object and the jet are both moving, and probably not in straight lines

Starting at frame 0 the clouds take 67 frames, or 2.23 seconds to cross the field of view, it's at a bit of an angle so that about 0.75° in 2 seconds, or 0.375°/sec
Starting at frame 400 it takes 103
600 - 758

Total cloud movement is about 6° to 7°. total camera rotation is 60° (54 to -6). So the camera rotates about 10x the rate the object is moving relative to the clouds, angularly.

In the first 300 frames (10 seconds), the heading changes from 54° to 40°, 14 degrees, or 1.4° per second. about 4.28 minutes for a full turn.

Air speed is 241 Knots, 277mph, so in 10 seconds the jet would have travelled 0.77 miles.

If we take the target position as essentially fixed (if it's far away), then the heading change is the actual turn rate of the jet and so would travel a circle of circumference 277/60/60*360/1.4 = 19.8 miles

Adding this all together in a VERY simple GeoGebra sim with a non-moving UFO seems to indicate the UFO is around 12-15 miles away

There seems to be an error in your calculations based on your assuming 241 Knots = 277 mph, which, however, is only true at sea level. At 25,000 ft altitude, 241 Knots = 403 mph (see my last reply above). Using the sea-level conversion for the Navy jet results in an underestimate of the circumference of the circle it travels, which you give as

((277/60)/60) * (360/1.4) = 19.8 miles

but which should instead be

((403/60)/60) * (360/1.4) = 28.8 miles

That larger circle may place the UFO further away. I'm not trying to be a nitpicking nag, just wanting to nail down exactly what the Navy jet's path was, because we can only know where or if the LOS angles (54˚L and 6˚R) intersect if we know the Navy jet's precise path. And it seems to me that it traveled about 3.4 miles around a circle with a circumference of about 29 miles.

There's another assumption in your above analysis that bugs me, which is: "If we take the target position as essentially fixed..." But what if it was not fixed? That assumption seems to set the UFO's position from the start, yet I want to find out what that position was, if possible. I suspect the best that can be done is to describe a range of possible flight-path scenarios as opposed to one definitive scenario. That the target was essentially fixed may be just one possible scenario.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There seems to be an error in your calculations based on your assuming 241 Knots = 277mph, which, however, is only true at sea level. At 25,000 ft altitude, 241 Knots = 403 mph (see my last reply above).
Knots are knots. They are nautical miles per second.

You seem to be thinking about the difference between TAS and CAS, or Mach numbers at different altitudes?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That's CAS vs. TAS, both are measured in knots. You're confusing things by saying knots are different speed. You are not just converting from knots to mph. You are converting from CAS knots to TAS mph.

You are correct though that I'm using CAS, not TAS. But you need to phrase it as such, or nobody will understand.
 

Getoffthisplanet

Active Member
Still making my way though it, at 35:32 in the 10/05/2019 Joe Rogan interview, Fravor says:

If the aura was caused by an unsharp mask process wouldn't/shouldn't Fravor be well familiar with its' characteristics or would this sort of minutia be strictly under the purview of the WSO?

I don't really follow Fravor and his media appearances/comments (except for this Rogan interview, not at all actually), is this the first time he's mentioned the Gimbal aura?

Also, I guess it would be tough to see evidence of it on the clouds, but if the aura around the object is a result of an unsharp mask process, why don't we see it on them? 2 cameras and a composite?
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Still making my way though it, at 35:32 in the 10/05/2019 Joe Rogan interview, Fravor says:

If the aura was caused by an unsharp mask process wouldn't/shouldn't Fravor be well familiar with its' characteristics or would this sort of minutia be strictly under the purview of the WSO?

I don't really follow Fravor and his media appearances/comments (except for this Rogan interview, not at all actually), is this the first time he's mentioned the Gimbal aura?

Also, I guess it would be tough to see evidence of it on the clouds, but if the aura around the object is a result of an unsharp mask process, why don't we see it on them? 2 cameras and a composite?

Because they don't have sharp(ish) edges.
 

igoddard

Active Member
That's CAS vs. TAS, both are measured in knots. You're confusing things by saying knots are different speed. You are not just converting from knots to mph. You are converting from CAS knots to TAS mph.

You are correct though that I'm using CAS, not TAS. But you need to phrase it as such, or nobody will understand.
You are also using TAS mph, at an altitude of 0 ft, which is 277 mph. All I'm saying is @ 25,000 ft altitude it's not that but 403 mph. Is that not right?

However, reading the different types of airspeed, might it be that we want EAS? What we want isn't airspeed but actual displacement in statute miles.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
V GIMBAL Video: Simulating the ATFLIR Tracking and Gimbal Rotation UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 20
Mick West Original Flir1, Gimbal, and Go Fast UFO "Raw" Video Files UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 33
Mick West Why Michio Kaku is wrong about the UFO Burden of Proof & Navy Videos UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 32
Mick West TFTRH #22: Seth Shostak: SETI Senior Astronomer: ETs, UFO "Disclosure" Area 51 Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 3
Getoffthisplanet Flir1, Go Fast, Gimbal - Navy Releases New Information: Official Dates UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 9
Mick West Gimbal Lock and Derotation in FLIR/ATFLIR systems UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 30
Mick West TTSA's Form DD-1910 for FLIR, Go Fast, and Gimbal videos UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 69
Mick West The Shape and Size of Glare Around Bright Lights UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 42
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Trailblazer Reutlingen Fake UFO Video 2013 UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
Rocky Gettysburg 'ghosts’ run across road [Windscreen smudge] General Discussion 4
D Falmouth "Shadow Creature" Video [Black Cat?] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 10
G Belarus demonstration video Current Events 2
M Fast moving object "intersecting clouds" in Hungarian YouTuber's video [Insect] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
U Looking for debunkings of the “Plandemic” video Coronavirus COVID-19 17
Jesse3959 Being seen from space - methods to demonstrate that sats are real and provide live video? Flat Earth 6
R Claim: Apollo 15-17 Live TV Feed - Antenna signal would be interrupted from all the violent shaking when Astronauts touch the buggy General Discussion 26
J Identifying the Mountains in JTolan's "Rocky Mountains" IR Video Flat Earth 31
Mick West Explained: RARE Video Footage of "Alien Space Craft" WATCHING ISS Astronaut! UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
Wizard Mexican UFO Video? [Oil Rigs] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
Mick West Simulating the Nimitz UFO video as a blurry plane UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 51
jarlrmai UFO video in Arizona from Reddit Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 22
Trailblazer Explained: video of concentric circular "chemtrails" (E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, Feb 1 2019) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Mick West Old USAF "UFO" Video Mentioned By Chris Mellon Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 15
mudr0 Need Debunking: Video claiming zigzaggin objects and movement prove EVA filmed in pool General Discussion 33
Ravi Utah Drone video of UFO [Probably an insect] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 126
Mick West Blowing out Candles with a Single Punch General Discussion 47
Mick West Some New-ish WTC7 Photos (and video?) Corner Damage 9/11 6
B Bob Lazar 1989 Video Analysis Method UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
deirdre Debunked: Lights chasing each other carving holes in clouds (fake video, fallstreak holes) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 17
StarGazer SpaceX Falcon 9 Captures Video of its own Contrail from Space UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 17
T FE balloon video curvature analysis using Blender Flat Earth 4
Mick West Explained: Viral Video of 787 Leaving Thick Contrails with Forced Perspective Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Astro Debunked: Astronaut's Arm Fades During ISS Video Proving "Green Screening" Science and Pseudoscience 1
Trailblazer Jet Airways intercept video "UFO" (airliner, flight LH998 or LH66?) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
penk CNN Greenscreened a guy on a ship? [No] General Discussion 12
Mick West Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrails, Flight IB6830 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 186
Mick West Debunked: Video of "Islamics Marching Through Berlin" [Biker Gangs] General Discussion 4
Mick West Close Up Videos of Contrails Forming And Evolving Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 19
M Bornong "Something Strange" - Hurriyah car bombing video seems staged General Discussion 50
Mick West P900 Plane and Contrails Photos and Video Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 17
mik Lots of wingtip vortices in a FiAF exercise demo video Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 0
Mick West Video of New Orleans Superdome Illustrating Curvature and Refraction Flat Earth 5
Clouds Givemethewillies Automated Video Tracking of Planes Tools for Investigating and Debunking 42
C Strange Flickering in Contrail Video Posted in Earlier Thread [Focussing artifacts] Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Leifer Polite video interviewing/debunking Practical Debunking 8
F Explained: Video of plane leaving "6 chemtrails, then 2" [Mixed Exhaust and Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Trailspotter Formation and Evolution of a Contrail Grid - Satellite Time-Lapse Video Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 22
SamBST Video of hot steel bending 9/11 43
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top