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

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But if even the mirrors managed to track all the way and then a sudden rotation is required at centre it still doesn’t explain why the glare rotates only at that point.
The rotation of the glare depends on the angle of whatever creates the shape of the glare. The outer gimbal mounted housing is the likely candidate, since it only rotates when absolutely needed. The tracking rotations of the the mirrors is not significantly changing the shape of the glare.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
Why is there so much focus on whether or not it rotated? Would known aircraft be incapable of rotating in the manner believers have hypothesized the video shows?
 

Ravi

Active Member
The rotation of the glare depends on the angle of whatever creates the shape of the glare. The outer gimbal mounted housing is the likely candidate, since it only rotates when absolutely needed. The tracking rotations of the the mirrors is not significantly changing the shape of the glare.
Glare, which is essentially stray light, is caused by micro scratches and/or dirt on optics (windows, mirrors, lenses, prisms), which makes the theory it is the outer window of the pod causing it, very plausible as that one is the environment facing element.
 

Daniel F

Member
Sorry to keep harping on with this point but -
I believe that the main gimbal section at front is required to rotate and tilt in unison to pick out any particularly place in the sky. Within that area that it is facing; the mirrors can then do fine adjustment. These would probably be used more for actually aiming a missile or something similar. The pod would point at the target and the mirrors would hone in for the precise position.

My belief is that the atflir; tracking a target miles away, starting 54 deg left all the way across to the centreline requires the main gimbal to be in constant movement. Theres no other way for the target to be tracked across the sky like that.

I’ve tested with a laser attached to a pivot which can also be rotated. Basically mimicking the tracking pod. If I want to run the laser across a steady line on my wall, about 2 deg below from left to right there is only one path that my mock up targeting pod may take, mechanically speaking. If you imagine the pivot hinges like hands pointing to 9 and 3 on a clock. Then to track the object starting on the left, the hinges must be rotated to approx 11 and 5. These hands must then slowly rotate through to 9 and 3 which would be straight ahead. At the same time it is ever so slightly pivoting on its other axis as well. The main movement throughout is the rotation though. As it passes through the centreline , it then continues rotating -the same way- counter clockwise in this instance and only the pivoting action is reversed and moves back away from a vertical position. As I say, the pivoting axis is much less and most of the movement is in the rotation.

I hope this is making sense as it’s difficult to explain. I have a video which a can post if need be. Its hardly high tech but shows the laser with a marker perpendicular so we can see the rotation. ( similar to the screw Mick uses in his video )

Basically in summary, the only possible path that I can take to track a target across from one side to the other, is a constant rotation of the pod at relatively steady speed throughout with minor pivoting of lens on left side being then reversed as it passes to the right. There is no major correction at centre. There would also be no way that I can think of, where the internal mirrors can track the target all the way. The pod, as a whole must constantly be facing the target and therefore continually rotating. If we just imagined that the pod stays still facing left and the mirrors would track; they would lose the target after about 4 or 5 degrees of motion as that would equate to a large change in position of object in the sky relative to the direction that the pod is facing.

Therefore if the glare is caused by the rotating lens on front of pod, it would surely be steadily rotating throughout.
 

Ravi

Active Member
cut

Therefore if the glare is caused by the rotating lens on front of pod, it would surely be steadily rotating throughout.

After reading your comment, I went back to page one of this thread to see the actual gimbal pod.. I think you are right. I was wrong in assuming the front window can move independently from the camera optics inside. Not sure where I got that from.. :confused:.

So indeed the front window is not the culprit.

EDIT
Ok, even more reading.. Sorry lost track of this subject for a while.. :)
The "glare rotation" is not caused by a single optic, it is due to the combination of the gimbal motion and the image de-rotation. The way you also described very nicely! The image will rotate when tracking something. Thus it its corrected angularly actively. This de-rotation can be done electronically (image processing), or physically, using "three mirror de-rotators" sometimes called K-mirros (https://www.eaobservatory.org/jcmt/instrumentation/heterodyne/harp/k-mirror/, this is a better example.), which are bulky complicated optical systems. The atflir pods have I think, the latter.
 
Last edited:

JMartJr

Senior Member
Why is there so much focus on whether or not it rotated? Would known aircraft be incapable of rotating in the manner believers have hypothesized the video shows?
Other than rotating, it does not do anything at all and is just an uninteresting distant featureless blob.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
Other than rotating, it does not do anything at all and is just an uninteresting distant featureless blob.
That is a false statement.

A state of the art air-to-air interceptor jet from the most powerful military in the world is depicted failing to intercept and identify a fleet of radar contacts (audio clearly states this, as well as testimony) at a (relatively) close range.

This is an unexpected result.

We still have no idea what the source of the IR is and have no working theory that can stand up to serious scrutiny for what it could be.

Let's not pretend like the case is solved just because the rotation is probably (not certainly) caused by the gimbal rotating.
 

Ulrich

New Member
I hope this is making sense as it’s difficult to explain. I have a video which a can post if need be. Its hardly high tech but shows the laser with a marker perpendicular so we can see the rotation. ( similar to the screw Mick uses in his video )
Pls, post your video. I think I know what you mean, but it would be nice to see it.
 

Daniel F

Member
By the way, I’ll just add that I’m new to this forum, but I’m not a ufo nut trying to argue. I don’t know what the object is. If it wasn’t military footage I would just presume it’s a superimposed object and a fake.

I’m leaning towards some exotic drone that we don’t know about as I’m not convinced it’s glare. If I’m right about the gimbal rotation, which I think I might be. If it’s not glare, how do we explain the other corroborating artefacts ?
Like confirmation bias, once you have observed these artefacts in unison with the object, it’s difficult to see them as anything else.

There are other explanations though. It requires removing the object from the footage to be able to see them though. If you obscure the object everything looks far more benign.

The speckled heat/light signatures which seem to rotate also coincide with the jet suddenly levelling out. Watch how they rotate in tandem with the central bars on screen which denote the banking angle of the f18. The several bumps we see along the way happen, again, particularly as the f18 is levelling out. This could simply be turbulence. We are after all looking through a zoomed lens, strapped to the front of a jet at 25k feet going half the speed of sound. You would expect some bumpiness. Theres just so little data that it’s all a bit speculative unfortunately. Would be great to get more footage. Why do we get such cropped footage ? That, in itself , always rings alarm bells for me. Almost like they must not show us the preceding moment or the next second either, as it tells a different story.
 

Empiricist

New Member
Why do we get such cropped footage ? That, in itself , always rings alarm bells for me. Almost like they must not show us the preceding moment or the next second either, as it tells a different story.
Indeed, the way these videos are cropped just as they are certainly appears to be more than a coincidence.

Two explanations seem to be in accordance with the evidence:
  1. Longer videos would have revealed unambiguously that the objects have prosaic explanations, and would have prevented this entire circus. If this is true, it suggests the cropping was performed as it was to allow these videos to be used in a purposefully misleading fashion.
  2. Longer videos would have revealed unambiguously that the objects do not have prosaic explanations. The argument for this one is that the "obviously non-prosaic" portions of the video would remain classified, while these "uninteresting distant featureless blob" portions could potentially be marked unclassified.
On the other hand, we could be finding meaning where there isn't any - it is indeed just a coincidence - and longer videos just show more of the same.
 

Daniel F

Member
Totally agree ! Although I’m getting slightly of the subject so will keep it brief - I understand the concept of keeping classified information regarding on screen radar systems or on screen atflir data, but why show us the gimbal up to that moment and then stop ? There’s no logical classification related reason. It’s really annoying. The cutting of the footage at that precise moment is about the most perplexing thing of the whole affair. The only logical conclusion I can take from your choice of explanations is that the next second ruins the whole mystery. But then it means that navy/military/government personnel are purposefully abusing their position to abuse more persuasive members of the public who really do believe. That’s as cruel and horrifying a thought to me as an alien invasion. Give me the flying tic tacs from zeta reticule please !
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
Other than rotating, it does not do anything at all and is just an uninteresting distant featureless blob.

I get that. I guess I just don't understand the inordinate fixation from all parties on the rotation, be it from the object itself or from the gimbal. What difference does it make? If the rotation is from the gimbal it doesn't debunk the entire saga and if the rotation is from the object it doesn't mean it's an alien spacecraft.
 

Daniel F

Member
I get that. I guess I just don't understand the inordinate fixation from all parties on the rotation, be it from the object itself or from the gimbal. What difference does it make? If the rotation is from the gimbal it doesn't debunk the entire saga and if the rotation is from the object it doesn't mean it's an alien spacecraft.
It’s just a very strange motion to observe. Doesn’t mean the onset of alien invasion, but it is just an interesting manoeuvre to see and try and make sense of.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
I get that. I guess I just don't understand the inordinate fixation from all parties on the rotation, be it from the object itself or from the gimbal. What difference does it make? If the rotation is from the gimbal it doesn't debunk the entire saga and if the rotation is from the object it doesn't mean it's an alien spacecraft.

When these videos came out, people, the TTSA with Elizondo, Mellon, pilots on History channel, Fravor etc all appeared on TV/news etc to claim that these videos specifically showed unusual, impossible things. They all appeared on news segments adjacent to these videos or talking specifically about these videos.

They had either looked at them themselves or had investigated them with experts or were repeating some analysis from the AATIP (Official Navy dept that Elizondo was a part of)

The claims are still online at the TTSA page, the History channel segments are linked in some of the relevant threads.

https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/2015-go-fast-footage

Go Fast: "The unidentified vehicle appears as a white oval shape moving at high speed from top right to lower left of the screen flying very low over the water."

https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/gimbal

Gimbal "the object begins a series of distinct rotations and changes orientation by almost 100 degrees. Its orientation is now perpendicular to the horizontal plane despite the headwinds. This maneuver is executed in a manner that is inconsistent with current principles of aerodynamics, and possibly indicative of a vacuum environment."

https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/2004-nimitz-flir1-video

Flir/Nimitz "Extreme maneuverability and startling changes in acceleration"

The problem is that we investigated these claims and found them wanting, there were obvious incorrect maths in Go Fast, it's clear the rotation in Gimbal is a camera artefact and the startling changes in acceleration in Flir/Nimitz are a result of a lost lock and camera zoom. Our analysis of these videos is specific to the claims made, it's not like the videos were put out without comment and we are all just looking at them, we are answering claims made by some of the same people still appearing next to them making claims.

These people are aware or should be aware of these debunks, yet they still appear on the news next to these videos, they told us they were interesting, that was the point of them. Now they are stepping down a bit on some of the claims in the small debunk/UFO twitter space, saying oh the interesting stuff happens after/before the video. "Oh the rotation that was inconsistent with aerodynamics, that's not the big deal when did we say it was?" Umm you said it was on numerous occasions.

The main issue is the lack of acknowledgement of the videos not showing anything in any space other than in small interviews, appearing on a minor YT channel saying "oh well the rotation is not as interesting as the crazy shit I saw just after/before" and the next day being on CNN showing the GIMBAL rotation clip on repeat with voice over of "what I saw was beyond our technology"
 

Daniel F

Member
With regards the gimbal footage on which this thread is based, I think the giveaway is in the actual editing. It’s like a bad magician quickly whipping the magical object away from the crowd before they can see that it’s not actually magical at all ! Having said that, I don’t think it is rotation of glare though. As I pointed out earlier.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
My belief is that the atflir; tracking a target miles away, starting 54 deg left all the way across to the centreline requires the main gimbal to be in constant movement. Theres no other way for the target to be tracked across the sky like that.
There are two axes of rotations of the exterior gimbal system. Since we are only looking down 2°, most of the gross adjustments can be done with the smaller axis (the ball), which will not rotate the front glass relative to the horizon. The traversal of 0° requires rotations of the main axis, which does rotate the glass relative to the horizon.
 

Daniel F

Member
Sorry , I must be missing something here but I disagree. You are right in that only one axis does most of the work. That would be the roll of the gimbal pod, rather than the pitch up or down of the lens. This roll of the gimbal pod would be a constant steady counter clockwise roll of the lens.
 

Daniel F

Member
This highly sophisticated re-enactment of the gimbal atflir includes a laser attached to a mirror which can move on the two axis discussed. The pencil just gives a bit more reference to the roll. This is mostly just rolling with a very fine amount of tilt at same time.
 

Daniel F

Member
It Is a fairly consistent rotation throughout with just slight pitch of camera one way in first half and then opposite in second half. This is what I meant by there being no sudden roll or correction at/around the 0 deg centre line. If the lens was creating glare then we should see a consistent roll of the glare throughout rather than sudden ?
 

Harabeck

New Member
That is a false statement.

A state of the art air-to-air interceptor jet from the most powerful military in the world is depicted failing to intercept and identify a fleet of radar contacts (audio clearly states this, as well as testimony) at a (relatively) close range.

This is an unexpected result.
Forgive my ignorance, to what testimony are you referring exactly? The video's audio indicates excitement, but there is nothing to suggest a failed intercept, only observation.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
That is a false statement.
It is not. The object in the video does nothing unusual once you understand that it did not rotate

A state of the art air-to-air interceptor jet from the most powerful military in the world is depicted failing to intercept and identify a fleet of radar contacts (audio clearly states this, as well as testimony) at a (relatively) close range
None of that is the object that is in the video doing anything unusual. In the video, we see an object fly smoothly along and do nothing. It's a hot whatever-it-is, hidden in IR glare, just cruising along. At the exact point when the camera rotates, the glare around object seems to rotate, along with other light/artifacts in the camera. The rotation looks odd until you understand what caused it. The object does nothing else at all but fly smoothly along.

We still have no idea what the source of the IR is and have no working theory that can stand up to serious scrutiny for what it could be.
It's a jet plane, that stands up to scrutiny and gives us a pretty good idea of the source of the IR.

Let's not pretend like the case is solved just because the rotation is probably (not certainly) caused by the gimbal rotating.
Without the rotation, the video shows nothing that needs much explaining.
 

Buckaroo

Member
That is a false statement.

Nope.

A state of the art air-to-air interceptor jet from the most powerful military in the world is depicted failing to intercept and identify a fleet of radar contacts (audio clearly states this, as well as testimony) at a (relatively) close range.

There is no evidence that there is any connection between the object on the ATFLIR and the supposed radar tracks that the planes were scrambled to intercept.

We still have no idea what the source of the IR is and have no working theory that can stand up to serious scrutiny for what it could be.

Well, we have no idea what kind of plane it was, at least.

Let's not pretend like the case is solved just because the rotation is probably (not certainly) caused by the gimbal rotating.

While it's technically not solved, after analysis it turns out to not be especially interesting, either.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sorry , I must be missing something here but I disagree. You are right in that only one axis does most of the work. That would be the roll of the gimbal pod, rather than the pitch up or down of the lens. This roll of the gimbal pod would be a constant steady counter clockwise roll of the lens.
No, it would not. Rolling the pod is a last resort movement, as it's the heaviest thing to rotate. The tracking left/right would be the rotation of the ball.
 

Daniel F

Member
No, it would not. Rolling the pod is a last resort movement, as it's the heaviest thing to rotate. The tracking left/right would be the rotation of the ball.
HI Mick,
sorry I think I’ve not been clear. I think I’m saying the same thing as you. When I say the pod rotates constantly to track the object from left to right, I mean the front ball, not the entire chamber it is attached to. The front ball or pod as I called it must rotate smoothly throughout to keep track with a slight pitching motion as well but mainly roll, as in my video. This ball rotation would rotate the entire front lens constantly. So if the object was creating a glare then we would see it rotate all the way through. The ball rotates constantly with no major correction required near the centre point. It just keeps rolling. The direction of travel of the craft that it is tracking is on a very simple path for the atflir to follow. Are you suggesting that the ball starts it’s track maybe in an abnormal position and when it gets to centre it must readjust by rolling suddenly around on its axis ? Not sure what else you mean. If the ball manages to get the initial lock it can only be in one position, and then from that point it’s a simple roll right through the centre and on. That’s my understanding of it. Happy to be proved wrong ! Wouldn’t be the first time !
 

Daniel F

Member
This is how the front would look if tracking an object around 2 degrees below. I can’t calculate any other way that the camera could move when following this path. Axis 1 must rotate constantly. Axis 2 slightly lifts towards centre and then drops again on other side. What do you think ? EC913753-4CC8-4B21-BD33-61854874CB60.jpeg
 

gtoffo

Active Member
There are two axes of rotations of the exterior gimbal system. Since we are only looking down 2°, most of the gross adjustments can be done with the smaller axis (the ball), which will not rotate the front glass relative to the horizon. The traversal of 0° requires rotations of the main axis, which does rotate the glass relative to the horizon.
I think you need to be clear Mick that this is an hypothesis (a reasonable) but it is not a certainty.

Watch the cut in (in the subpanel) video of the ATLFLIR making a transverse sweep here

Source: https://youtu.be/AcsAZTKRv5E?t=39
This is proof that a front glass rotation is not NEEDED for ATFLIR to track the object.

So the gimbal rotation hypothesis is possible (we cannot exclude it) but contradicted by two facts:
- the rotation is not necessary to perform that movement. So why do it?
- the rotation is not one single movement around 0° but multiple movements in discrete moments before and after the "singularity". That is not consistent with a gimbal lock avoidance movement

Also: the fact pilots and operators of this system find it a peculiar behaviour (even after substantial analysis) is further proof that this effect on ATFLIR is not ordinary/expected.
 

Daniel F

Member
Not sure if that image worked so will try again
 

Attachments

  • 0E61AC98-E970-48E8-8D9E-1E70E4926978.jpeg
    0E61AC98-E970-48E8-8D9E-1E70E4926978.jpeg
    60.6 KB · Views: 36

Daniel F

Member
If you look at the image above, the rotation must be constant all the way through. The two axis puts limits on how the camera can track. So I suggest it must do the above. Therefore the lens would be in constant rotation.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
Another very interesting aspect of the video we did not consider: the object seems to be slowing down.
See this video below.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_eXsOovx4w


This is consistent with testimony by Ryan Graves claiming the object slowed down and changed direction after the video cuts

Source: https://twitter.com/alpha_check/status/1400464136874516490?s=20


Also important point here: in the video they are saying "that isn't L+S though is it?"!!!

I never could understand what they were saying but now I know that's definitely it! They are confirming the Radar is in L+S mode and tracking the object as a primary target. That's huge.

After all those years we still haven't fully analysed this. Crazy.
 

Daniel F

Member
If the forward facing camera had full 3D capability and movement, it may be easier to suggest that the camera malfunctioned and rotated suddenly. The limitations that the gimbal is under regarding its two axis makes it much easier for us to deduce its position at any given moment by virtue of the fact that the object is in middle of screen, which also displays the degrees left/right and up/down. IamGoddard posted a very nice gif of a jet and it’s exhaust glares rotating. This is what we should see if this atflir pod is prone to glare. It may well be some malfunctioning artefact from software or hardware, I don’t know, but I am struggling with the lens glare hypothesis- as ingenious an idea as it is.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
The RADAR doesn't have an "L+S mode" it has tracks and one track is designated as L+S.

The ATFLIR can be SLAVED to the L+S where you ask it to point at the track designated as L+S, when this is done the ATFLIR get's it's vector from the RADAR and points at it, and moves to track the RADAR track, in this mode the words L+S are boxed.

In the GIMBAL video L+S is not boxed so it's optically tracking, now that doesn't mean they don't have an L+S though. Also it could be the L+S but they just decided not to SLAVE the ATLFIR to it although when this seems to happen in Go Fast we get a range to the target, but that might be a different system/config.

This means the video is not clear that the object on RADAR is the same object on the ATFLIR.
 

Daniel F

Member
The RADAR doesn't have an "L+S mode" it has tracks and one track is designated as L+S.

The ATFLIR can be SLAVED to the L+S where you ask it to point at the track designated as L+S, when this is done the ATLFIR get's it's vector from the RADAR and points at it, and moves to track the RADAR track, in this mode the words L+S are boxed.

In the GIMBAL video L+S is not boxed so it's optically tracking, now that doesn't mean they don't have an L+S though. Also it could be the L+S but they just decided not to SLAVE the ATLFIR to it although when this seems to happen in Go Fast we get a range to the target, but that might be a different system/config.

This means the video is not clear that the object on RADAR is the same object on the ATFLIR.
I think this is right. I seem to remember Fravor discussing this video. I’m sure he said that they were trying to get a track on radar but couldn’t. So they through the pod at it because if the object was somehow jamming radar, it couldn’t somehow become invisible and avoid the atflir. When the looked through the atflir, it appeared on screen.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
The RADAR doesn't have an "L+S mode" it has tracks and one track is designated as L+S.

The ATFLIR can be SLAVED to the L+S where you ask it to point at the track designated as L+S, when this is done the ATFLIR get's it's vector from the RADAR and points at it, and moves to track the RADAR track, in this mode the words L+S are boxed.

In the GIMBAL video L+S is not boxed so it's optically tracking, now that doesn't mean they don't have an L+S though. Also it could be the L+S but they just decided not to SLAVE the ATLFIR to it although when this seems to happen in Go Fast we get a range to the target, but that might be a different system/config.

This means the video is not clear that the object on RADAR is the same object on the ATFLIR.
I was assuming the same (that L+S should be boxed) but I don't think that is actually necessary judging from the behaviours we have observed.

The pilots can be clearly heard confirming the radar has an L+S track.

I think we might not have all the details of when the L+S SLAVE is boxed and shouldn't assume it should be. It might only be boxed if a compatible weapon is selected for example and the data is being fed to it or it is ready for launch. Remember all of those systems change depending on the weapon mode/type selected etc.

Most of those details are classified.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
I think this is right. I seem to remember Fravor discussing this video. I’m sure he said that they were trying to get a track on radar but couldn’t. So they through the pod at it because if the object was somehow jamming radar, it couldn’t somehow become invisible and avoid the atflir. When the looked through the atflir, it appeared on screen.
Fravor was almost certainly talking about the NIMITZ video (FLIR1).

Here you can clearly hear the pilots say they have L+S tracking and that the objects are on the SA screen (the situational awareness screen).
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
I was assuming the same (that L+S should be boxed) but I don't think that is actually necessary judging from the behaviours we have observed.

The pilots can be clearly heard confirming the radar has an L+S track.

I think we might not have all the details of when the L+S SLAVE is boxed and shouldn't assume it should be. It might only be boxed if a compatible weapon is selected for example and the data is being fed to it or it is ready for launch. Remember all of those systems change depending on the weapon mode/type selected etc.

Most of those details are classified.
Not according to the simulator manuals and reference videos. That's not how the system is designed from I can tell. It would need evidence to the contrary to show that it can be SLAVED and not have L+S or SLAVE boxed, and not just the testimony which never specifically states this although it implies something. Someone directly addressing the lack of the boxing of the words is needed. The words on screen are next to buttons on the display they indicate which button is pressed to activate that option, the manuals are clear that when L+S is SLAVED to the L+S words are boxed.

Also if the target were SLAVED to a RADAR track changes to the zoom level would not cause the pod to lose track, the RADAR would keep the ATLFIR pointing at the track.

You can also see the "confidence" bars during the video, these show the "confidence" the optical auto track has that it is tracking a target these fluctuate indicating optical tracking is happening.

I've linked the simulator manuals here before, have you read them?
 

Daniel F

Member
Actually you are right. This interview of Fravor with Joe Rogan. Around 38.50 he starts watching/discussing gimbal footage. He says they have it on radar as well. I like Fravor. I don’t doubt his beliefs that he saw something. There are some inconsistencies with his analysis though. It may just be in heat of moment, but he mis speaks clearly here. Paraphrasing ‘ it’s in white hot initially here, and now he switches it in to TV mode and you can see this aura around it’
this is the first real slip up I’ve noticed with Fravor. It’s clearly not tv mode, it’s IR black hot. The aura is heat signature. Strange for him to make such a mistake. He may just be nervous. I don’t know.
Source: https://youtu.be/Eco2s3-0zsQ
 

Daniel F

Member
Anyone else spot that ? It’s quite jarring misdiagnosis. Also, our friend Jeremy Corbell is insufferable....
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
He's confusing GIMBAL with FLIR, GIMBAL is IR only and FLIR switches between TV and IR. Conflation of the videos and accounts is very common.
 

Daniel F

Member
He's confusing GIMBAL with FLIR, GIMBAL is IR only and FLIR switches between TV and IR. Conflation of the videos and accounts is very common.
Ah ok. I thought FLIR or ATFLIR is the name of the whole system itself; the complete unit and all its optics, and gimbal is just the name which denotes the mechanical pod and it’s movement ? Its a two axis system of movement - a gimbal ?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
bird_up "Gimbal UFO video rendered in 3D" by Abominati0n UFOs and Aliens 5
V Gimbal Video Interactive Software/Program UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 16
J White dot in top left of Gimbal video UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 3
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
Edward Current Does the beginning part of Gimbal debunk the claim that the object rotates? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 13
M Gimbal ID of a possible jet? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 36
Mick West Gimbal distance and Speed Range Estimates using Lines of Bearing and/or DCS UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 247
Daniel F F-16 Pilot- Chris Lehto analyses Gimbal footage UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 197
Daniel F Hypothesis - Rotation of Gimbal not caused by lens glare. UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 32
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 44
S Did NIST edit WTC building 7 footage? 9/11 4
N Explained: "Jellyfish object" video in Russia [Rocket Launch] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
F Example of a Boeing 737 "Tic Tac" (video) UFOs and Aliens 9
ki_cz Need help debunking FE video Flat Earth 42
R Video of UFOs around/on the sun - Sunspots and a Bird UFOs and Aliens 15
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
LorentzHall Elizondo Claims DoD Have A 50-Feet-Away Photo & 23 Minute Video UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 30
R Explained: Video of Vandenberg UFO shooting down ICBM [reenactment] UFOs and Aliens 8
Vara La Fey Video of all FAA mandated aircraft lights? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
V Needs debunking: flat earthers claim this reflection to show a harness in ISS video Flat Earth 10
M Any explanation for this UFO video? UFOs and Aliens 6
S Does this video footage show a dragon (sea serpent) attacking a manatee? [No] Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
A USS Omaha UFO / UAP Radar Video UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 257
CeruleanBlu Video summary of Independent Forensic Team Report on Oroville Dam Oroville Dam 2
M 'UFO' video just shows contrail formation? Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Mick West Mike Lindell's 2-Hour Election Fraud Claim Video "Absolute Proof": Hacking Claims Election 2020 7
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Trailblazer Reutlingen Fake UFO Video 2013 UFOs and Aliens 3
Rocky Gettysburg 'ghosts’ run across road [Windscreen smudge] General Discussion 4
D Falmouth "Shadow Creature" Video [Black Cat?] Ghosts, 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 and Aliens 1
Wizard Mexican Air Force UFO Video? [Oil Rigs] UFOs and Aliens 14
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
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 Zip-By] UFOs and Aliens 131
Mick West Blowing out Candles with a Single Punch General Discussion 47
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top