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

Amber Robot

Active Member
Glare can be caused by any optical surface, not just powered one. You can easily prove this to yourself by smudging the window on your camera’s phone, as Mick has already done.
The light rays pass through or bounce off of all the optics so any defect that causes a deviation of the light path can contribute to glare.
I guess I don’t understand your argument as it’s not consistent with my experience or understanding.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
That's not quite what I am saying, you do both you SLAVE then use optical, but SLAVE remains boxed, unless you turn it off for some reason.
Once you start the optical track you would loose the boxed SLAVE indicator as ATFLIR is not using the Radar to track but just the optical track.

It's either one or the other.
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
Nah you can have optical autotrack and slave at the same time as far as the sim shows:

Source: https://youtu.be/kGQYBpXqfMU?t=616

Note in this video the initial track is SLAVED to RADAR L+S and then optical track is performed and the L+S option is still boxed, you would need to probably unselect SLAVE on the MFD to unbox it. They might have done this but it seems unlikely.

Either way it shows the modes are not exclusive.
 
Last edited:

Itsme

Member
Here's the Gimbal footage stabilised on the object, and then overlaid with a crosshair on a static part of the overlay.

I think that this helps to show how the entire image jolts around at the start of each rotation.

If you look carefully frame by frame you'll see that the jolts are actually small LOS corrections of the ATFLIR to keep the object in its tracking window.

Just prior to each rotation, the object rises a bit. The ATFLIR immediately shifts its LOS to keep the object in its tracking window. These are the jolts you see. Right after that the object starts to rotate.

Below are two screenshots for each 'jolt', one before and one right after the short rise of the object. The jolt follows, and is the result of the ATFLIR adjusting the tracking window. You have to watch the video frame by frame to see it.

First jolt at 14 degrees left:
Screenshot_2021-06-09-14-41-54-252~2.jpegScreenshot_2021-06-09-14-42-22-845~2.jpeg

2nd jolt, at 7 degrees left:
Screenshot_2021-06-09-14-43-41-063~2.jpegScreenshot_2021-06-09-14-44-02-617~2.jpeg

3d jolt, at 4 degrees left:
Screenshot_2021-06-09-14-45-03-280~2.jpegScreenshot_2021-06-09-14-45-15-562~2.jpeg
 

Itsme

Member
Glare can be caused by any optical surface, not just powered one. You can easily prove this to yourself by smudging the window on your camera’s phone, as Mick has already done.
The light rays pass through or bounce off of all the optics so any defect that causes a deviation of the light path can contribute to glare.
I guess I don’t understand your argument as it’s not consistent with my experience or understanding.
There are two rotating mirrors mounted in the gimbal that point the Line Of Sight (LOS) of the camera to any object outside. If there is a 'smudge' on the ATFLIR window, it will not be in the ATFLIR field of view (FOV) continuously because its FOV is only 0,7 degrees while the object's position varies tens of degrees while the jet is making a banking turn. So there is no way a smudge on the gimbal window is causing the appearance of the object, because it would only be in the FOV for a very short period, let alone be exactly in the center of the FOV all the time.
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Active Member
There are two rotating mirrors mounted in the gimbal that point the Line Of Sight (LOS) of the camera to any object outside. If there is a 'smudge' on the ATFLIR window, it will not be in the ATFLIR field of view (FOV) continuously because its FOV is only 0,7 degrees while the object's position varies tens of degrees while the jet is making a banking turn. So there is no way a smudge on the gimbal window is causing the appearance of the object, because it would only be in the FOV for a very short period, let alone be exactly in the center of the FOV all the time.

The full aperture of these pod windows surely will be affected by the harsh outside weather. I can imagine these windows need cleaning and maintenance quite often.

But, as this surface is scattering, it will show the (spiky) glare seen in the videos, why is this a question? Do we really need to debate for 200 posts if it is scattering or not.
 

Max Phalange

Active Member
If you look carefully frame by frame you'll see that the jolts are actually small LOS corrections of the ATFLIR to keep the object in its tracking window.

Just prior to each rotation, the object rises a bit. The ATFLIR immediately shifts its LOS to keep the object in its tracking window. These are the jolts you see. Right after that the object starts to rotate.

Below are two screenshots for each 'jolt', one before and one right after the short rise of the object. The jolt follows, and is the result of the ATFLIR adjusting the tracking window. You have to watch the video frame by frame to see it.

First jolt at 14 degrees left:
Screenshot_2021-06-09-14-41-54-252~2.jpegScreenshot_2021-06-09-14-42-22-845~2.jpeg

2nd jolt, at 7 degrees left:
Screenshot_2021-06-09-14-43-41-063~2.jpegScreenshot_2021-06-09-14-44-02-617~2.jpeg

3d jolt, at 4 degrees left:
Screenshot_2021-06-09-14-45-03-280~2.jpegScreenshot_2021-06-09-14-45-15-562~2.jpeg
The clouds jolt too, it's camera movement. Not a magical vertical translation of the object every time it starts rotating.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The front window has already been discussed and cannot cause such a consistent glare of a 0,1 degree object over a large area.
Wait, I missed the part where this was agreed upon. ...

There are two rotating mirrors mounted in the gimbal that point the Line Of Sight (LOS) of the camera to any object outside. If there is a 'smudge' on the ATFLIR window, it will not be in the ATFLIR field of view (FOV) continuously because its FOV is only 0,7 degrees while the object's position varies tens of degrees while the jet is making a banking turn. So there is no way a smudge on the gimbal window is causing the appearance of the object, because it would only be in the FOV for a very short period, let alone be exactly in the center of the FOV all the time.

My hypothesis is more that it is streaked than smudged, like someone wiped the window to "clean" it. Your point about the line of sight traversing the window is reasonable though. I'd offer two counterpoints:

1) The object is at -2°, so can be tracked by rotating the ball, which could keep the LOS more in the center of the window
2) The object changes shape over time, possibly because the cause of the glare shape has changed.
 
Last edited:

Amber Robot

Active Member
There are two rotating mirrors mounted in the gimbal that point the Line Of Sight (LOS) of the camera to any object outside. If there is a 'smudge' on the ATFLIR window, it will not be in the ATFLIR field of view (FOV) continuously because its FOV is only 0,7 degrees while the object's position varies tens of degrees while the jet is making a banking turn. So there is no way a smudge on the gimbal window is causing the appearance of the object, because it would only be in the FOV for a very short period, let alone be exactly in the center of the FOV all the time.
Maybe you’ll have to draw a diagram of what you’re thinking because I cant picture it. I must have a different understanding of the optical layout than you do.
 

Domzh

Active Member
Maybe you’ll have to draw a diagram of what you’re thinking because I cant picture it. I must have a different understanding of the optical layout than you do.
what he is saying is:

if you simulate the glare effect with your smartphone camera, the lens of the camera has a direct line of sight to the glare source basically all the time. you can move the flashlight (for example) around and still produce a glare effect.

the gimbal however, has the window first, then an array of mirrors who can make tiny adjustments, then follows the derotating mechanic, then the actual camera lens.

an object that is far away has basically zero chance to always perfectly stay in the middle of the tiny window and the mirrors to have a line of sight with the camera. its plausible the mirrors need to shift their position to keep the object at a distance in the FOV, hence the glare would move / shift if it origins from the window.

example: film through a tube. right ahead of you: glare. if you move the flashlight you will eventually loose glare (and the object without moving the tube). if the tube remains stationary but you would put little mirrors inside of it, you would eventually find the light again but most likely loose the glare effect. (i know the glare happens on the window of the gimbal but it should illustrate the point of the LOS).

i actually raised the same objection a couple pages earlier, if the glare happens on the window due to a "smear / smudge" then i would expect a glare that doesnt turn on its center axis but would "expose" the real object, changes its form during the rotation or would even "rotate with a curved trajectory".
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I've gone back and forth on the source of the glare shape. A simple optical scattering glare would give a fuzzy-edged circle. Diffraction spikes come from the aperture
Different len glares.jpg

And will vary with an adjustable aperture


But I also found just a clean camera can create a saucer shape.


"Aperture" could be any masking of the light along the optical pathway.
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
what he is saying is:

if you simulate the glare effect with your smartphone camera, the lens of the camera has a direct line of sight to the glare source basically all the time. you can move the flashlight (for example) around and still produce a glare effect.

the gimbal however, has the window first, then an array of mirrors who can make tiny adjustments, then follows the derotating mechanic, then the actual camera lens.

an object that is far away has basically zero chance to always perfectly stay in the middle of the tiny window and the mirrors to have a line of sight with the camera. its plausible the mirrors need to shift their position to keep the object at a distance in the FOV, hence the glare would move / shift if it origins from the window.

example: film through a tube. right ahead of you: glare. if you move the flashlight you will eventually loose glare (and the object without moving the tube). if the tube remains stationary but you would put little mirrors inside of it, you would eventually find the light again but most likely loose the glare effect. (i know the glare happens on the window of the gimbal but it should illustrate the point of the LOS).

i actually raised the same objection, i would expect a glare that doesnt turn on its center axis but would "expose" the real object, changes its form during the rotation or would even "rotate with a curved trajectory".
I imagine the window is on the part that gimbals though and thus the optics behind the window are fixed relative to the window. The mechanism moves the whole thing around to point in different directions.
I’m not imagining optics moving around on their own behind the window. Maybe I’m wrong. But that’s what it looks like from some of the images I’ve seen of the ATFLIR system.

regardless it really depends on how much of the window is being used for a given object and that depends on the focal length the aperture size etc and I don’t have that info for this system.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I imagine the window is on the part that gimbals though and thus the optics behind the window are fixed relative to the window. The mechanism moves the whole thing around to point in different directions.
I’m not imagining optics moving around on their own behind the window. Maybe I’m wrong. But that’s what it looks like from some of the images I’ve seen of the ATFLIR system.

There are two gimbal systems. The large external one, that essentially moves what the window/ball is pointing out, aka the "field of regard"

Then there are internal gimballed mirrors that make more refined adjustments to the line of sight, or "field of view". These are much lighter than the external gimbals, especially the main long axis which is moving maybe 50-100 pounds of mass. So the internal gimbals are greatly preferred over that one.

Adjusting the LOS with the mirror gimbals will change which bit of the window it passes through
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
There are two gimbal systems. The large external one, that essentially moves what the window/ball is pointing out, aka the "field of regard"

Then there are internal gimballed mirrors that make more refined adjustments to the line of sight, or "field of view". These are much lighter than the external gimbals, especially the main long axis which is moving maybe 50-100 pounds of mass. So the internal gimbals are greatly preferred over that one.

Adjusting the LOS with the mirror gimbals will change which bit of the window it passes through
Ok. Thanks. I hadn’t realized the double gimbal system. So I’m probably not correct in some of my assessments. It really comes down to the relative size difference between the footprint of the field of view and the field of regard.
 

BrianHoltz

New Member
It's great that people here are trying to figure out exactly how/whether the gimbals in an ASQ-228 ATFLIR produce rotating sky glare. But how plausible is the alternative theory: that a rotating hot object several miles away generates a radial IR glare many multiples of its angular diameter, and that has a noticeable pattern that rotates with the object? (Will believers take this as extra evidence that the UAP is alien?)

Also, why does the UAP decide to rotate exactly when the observing F-18 passes through 0 degrees offset (when the gimbal would need to rotate)? Was one of the aircrew named Schrödinger?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But how plausible is the alternative theory: that a rotating hot object several miles away generates a radial IR glare many multiples of its angular diameter, and that has a noticeable pattern that rotates with the object? (Will believers take this as extra evidence that the UAP is alien?)
I don't think they think that it's generating glare. They think the black shape is the actual object - although are maybe divided on the spikes.

The idea that the pattern in the sky comes from the object and rotates with it is pretty ludicrous. It would imply a precisely focused set of beams of lights that go directly into the camera and remain focused on the camera. There's no conceivable way that would work. But it might be challenging to adequately explain. You'd have to steelman it first, get a better version of the argument to debunk.
 

Itsme

Member
What's their explanation then for the white-hot part of the video early on, where it has a totally different shape?
Who is "they"..?
Is it ... "not us" ...?
Am I a part of "them" without even realising it...?

Anyhow, I hope I don't get contaminated with this bloody "us-them" virus. It's becoming more dangerous than corona in the US right now...

My explanation would be that you're viewing the object from various angles and distances, plus a bit of glare materialising in the camera cannot be ruled out.

Glare materialising in the ATFLIR "wind screen" is a different story. The wind screen of any ATFLIR is bound to be scratched and dirty since it is a pretty scratch sensitive material facing a pretty harsh environment. But that's not a big problem because it is kept out of focus. This means the effect of small scratches and dirt will be smeared out all over the CCD and is hardly visible (just a light veiling glare). That is why I think Mick's claim does not hold, even if someone managed to evenly polish consistent scratches in the window surface that happen to be parallel to the horizon at the specific banking angle of the jet. If surface contamination on an ATFLIR window was that visible, it would show up in many more ATFLIR images.
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
Glare materialising in the ATFLIR "wind screen" is a different story. The wind screen of any ATFLIR is bound to be scratched and dirty since it is a pretty scratch sensitive material facing a pretty harsh environment. But that's not a big problem because it is kept out of focus. This means the effect of small scratches and dirt will be smeared out all over the CCD and is hardly visible (just a light veiling glare). That is why I think Mick's claim does not hold, even if someone managed to evenly polish consistent scratches in the window surface that happen to be parallel to the horizon at the specific banking angle of the jet. If surface contamination on an ATFLIR window was that visible, it would show up in many more ATFLIR images.

That is mostly true but only for images without bright light sources in them, scratches/smudges on front elements are generally not that impactful on the basic image, the problem is when you have a bright light source, i.e. non reflected light or very bright highlights, but mainly direct light sources.

There actually isn't that many ATLFLIR videos out there taken under similar conditions (distant bright heat source) But they have been found and demonstrate the same thing we see in GIMBAL.
 

Itsme

Member
That is mostly true but only for images without bright light sources in them, scratches/smudges on front elements are generally not that impactful on the basic image, the problem is when you have a bright light source, i.e. non reflected light or very bright highlights, but mainly direct light sources.

There actually isn't that many ATLFLIR videos out there taken under similar conditions (distant bright heat source) But they have been found and demonstrate the same thing we see in GIMBAL.

No, they don't. That's kind of the problem I have with all these demo videos claiming to show the same thing.

They show some glare materializing in the camera, by the light coming in from a distant object that is more or less in focus.
In the ATFLIR, all distant objects are kept perfectly straight to the camera by the de-rotation mirrors in its optical path. So, a distant object cannot cause a rotating glare, but at most some rotating lens flares (the sharp 'starbursts' radiating out; the famous video of the twin engine jet shows this perfectly: The only thing really rotating independently from the jet are the lens flares radiating out to the bottom of the image).

Mick's claim is something else entirely: A glare on the ATFLIR window screen, caused by scratches, is caught by the camera. This is the only way to get the glare to rotate with the gimbal.
The ATFLIR window screen, however, is not in focus. There is no way a windscreen glare would show up this sharp in the ATFLIR image. The only thing it will cause in your image are some very vague streaks, like these examples show, where the scratches on the lens are also not in focus:

Camera lens:
1623327810130.png

Picture:
1623327913397.png
The scratches go from top to bottom and cause the vague cloudy streaks going from top to bottom.
Source: Youtube video /watch?v=Gy8-t7xP2oA

Or this one, lens:
1623328105178.png

Pictures:
1623328222606.png1623329240385.png
Source: Youtube video /watch?v=oTjTRQohhgU


This is probably a deliberate design by Raytheon, since you don't want dust, scratches, and smudges to interfere with the image so you would deliberately keep the ATFLIR wind screen as far out of focus as possible.
Here's a picture of an actual ATFLIR window. Imagine all these specs of dust/insects/smudges showing up in your image:
1623332489446.png
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Active Member
You can see something similar to Gimbal in the photo of the sun, on the left hand side the glare around the sun extends outward somewhat to the left.
 

Buckaroo

Member
No, they don't. That's kind of the problem I have with all these demo videos claiming to show the same thing.
Yes, they do. I've already pointed out the Chilean jet example above, and others have also explained to you why you're wrong about this, yet you continue to double- and triple-down. Your point has been addressed multiple times, and dismissed. It's time to let it go.
 
Last edited:

Amber Robot

Active Member
This is probably a deliberate design by Raytheon, since you don't want dust, scratches, and smudges to interfere with the image so you would deliberately keep the ATFLIR wind screen as far out of focus as possible.
Here's a picture of an actual ATFLIR window. Imagine all these specs of dust/insects/smudges showing up in your image:
1623332489446.png
When the system is focusing on things miles away it’s not hard to keep that window away from a focal plane.
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
There are two gimbal systems. The large external one, that essentially moves what the window/ball is pointing out, aka the "field of regard"

Then there are internal gimballed mirrors that make more refined adjustments to the line of sight, or "field of view". These are much lighter than the external gimbals, especially the main long axis which is moving maybe 50-100 pounds of mass. So the internal gimbals are greatly preferred over that one.

Adjusting the LOS with the mirror gimbals will change which bit of the window it passes through
Do we know the mode of operation though? Does the internal gimbal track and the large gimbal follow to keep up? Could the two be moving in unison well enough to keep a smudge essentially coincident with the field of view?
 

Domzh

Active Member
Do we know the mode of operation though? Does the internal gimbal track and the large gimbal follow to keep up? Could the two be moving in unison well enough to keep a smudge essentially coincident with the field of view?
extremely unlikely to maintain this throughout the footage, especially when the gimbal rotates and the f18 changes turn radius
 

Ravi

Active Member
I was googling for the optical design of the ATFLIR, and of course not easy to find. But, I found this Chinese article where the authors go over a number of advanced optical systems. It is in Chinese, but luckily sometimes English terms and acronyms are used. The image below is from this source and shows the sideview of the gimbal mounted telescope. It is a TMA (three mirror anastigmat), which is a very neat compact design but not often used as it requires conic surfaces which are not easy to make.
So as this a telescope, of course it needs an imaging/objective optical system to make an actual image. But I cannot find these details (yet).

If we/I would have the ATFLIR optical system description (distances, radii etc), we could actually try to optically simulate things.

atflir.png
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
I was googling for the optical design of the ATFLIR, and of course not easy to find. But, I found this Chinese article where the authors go over a number of advanced optical systems. It is in Chinese, but luckily sometimes English terms and acronyms are used. The image below is from this source and shows the sideview of the gimbal mounted telescope. It is a TMA (three mirror anastigmat), which is a very neat compact design but not often used as it requires conic surfaces which are not easy to make.
So as this a telescope, of course it needs an imaging/objective optical system to make an actual image. But I cannot find these details (yet).

If we/I would have the ATFLIR optical system description (distances, radii etc), we could actually try to optically simulate things.

atflir.png
A TMA is often used when you need a large field of view (like multiple degrees) with low aberration content. Not common in astronomy where FOVs are often small (largest I’ve personally used has been 20 arcminutes), but sometimes for surveys, like the LSST (Vera Rubin Observatory). The LSST’s TMA is on axis, but other TMA’s I’ve seen have looked like this design, with multiple off-axis conics, which are often difficult to make and to align.
Edited to add: this ray trace makes it look likes the entrance aperture isn’t too far in front of the primary, a fact perhaps relevant to the idea of how much a smudge on a window would create glare for different object angles.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick's claim is something else entirely: A glare on the ATFLIR window screen, caused by scratches, is caught by the camera. This is the only way to get the glare to rotate with the gimbal.

You seem to be entirely misunderstanding.

A glare caused by the window is not ON the window. You don't need to focus on it. It does not need to be "caught by the camera"

A glare caused by a streaked window or other parts of the optical path is mostly a diffraction and refraction SCATTERING effect. Light is scattered slightly in some directions, simply spreading out a bright light source in those directions. Things like window streaked or scratched in one direction will cause it to scatter more in one direction (perpendicular to the streaks, like street lights on a wiped windshield) This makes the glare (which nominally would be round) be elongated in one direction.

As I've said, I've gone back and forth on the contribution of the window to the shape of the glare.

While it would be interesting and useful to figure out and demonstrate, it also kind of misses the point that other things in the video demonstrate it is glare - the diffraction spikes, the light patterns in the sky, and the synchronization of the rotation to the camera bumps.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Do we know the mode of operation though? Does the internal gimbal track and the large gimbal follow to keep up? Could the two be moving in unison well enough to keep a smudge essentially coincident with the field of view?

It's not a smudge. A "smudge" seems like a misinterpretation of the theory. It sounds like some people think the smudge IS the shape. Dave Falch just did a video repeating his old objections, and now brings up a "smudge"

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pC4oWBW6Us


2021-06-10_22-29-48.jpg

No, absolutely not, nothing at all like that.
 

Itsme

Member
A glare caused by a streaked window or other parts of the optical path is mostly a diffraction and refraction SCATTERING effect. Light is scattered slightly in some directions, simply spreading out a bright light source in those directions. Things like window streaked or scratched in one direction will cause it to scatter more in one direction (perpendicular to the streaks, like street lights on a wiped windshield) This makes the glare (which nominally would be round) be elongated in one direction.
Exactly!
And this is precisely what we see in the photographs made with heavily scratched lenses I posted above. The vague vertical streaks you see in the photograph of the sun are what you describe spot-on: "Light is scattered slightly in some directions".

You'll never get such a sharply defined object as in the gimbal video by this scattering effect, though. Let alone one that stays this stable.
 

Itsme

Member
I was googling for the optical design of the ATFLIR, and of course not easy to find. But, I found this Chinese article where the authors go over a number of advanced optical systems. It is in Chinese, but luckily sometimes English terms and acronyms are used. The image below is from this source and shows the sideview of the gimbal mounted telescope. It is a TMA (three mirror anastigmat), which is a very neat compact design but not often used as it requires conic surfaces which are not easy to make.
So as this a telescope, of course it needs an imaging/objective optical system to make an actual image. But I cannot find these details (yet).

If we/I would have the ATFLIR optical system description (distances, radii etc), we could actually try to optically simulate things.

atflir.png
There actually is a patent currently assigned to Raytheon on a TMA arrangement that looks like it would fit into an ATFLIR:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4265510A/en
I attached the pdf for convenience.

Some quotes:
Primary mirror 12 and secondary mirror 14 constitute a telephoto objective. [...] The entrance pupil is on the surface of primary mirror 12.

Describing the same arrangement in a slightly different configuration:
In the system 30 the entrance pupil 32 is out in front of ellipsoid primary mirror 34
1623406029162.png

It seems like the ATFLIR window acts as the entrance pupil for a telephoto construction, just like in the photograph examples I posted above.
 

Attachments

  • US4265510.pdf
    511.3 KB · Views: 10

FatPhil

Active Member
Exactly!
And this is precisely what we see in the photographs made with heavily scratched lenses I posted above. The vague vertical streaks you see in the photograph of the sun are what you describe spot-on: "Light is scattered slightly in some directions".

You'll never get such a sharply defined object as in the gimbal video by this scattering effect, though. Let alone one that stays this stable.

Why are you treating a few isolated imperfections as being the same thing as a smear across the whole surface? They're very different.
And the gimbal object isn't "sharply defined" by any definition of the word "sharply" that I'm aware of. It's looks to me like a vague upscaled speck with some noise reduction and something like unsharpening (but with too much halo to be undirected unsharpening, but perhaps selective after segmentation?).
 

Domzh

Active Member
apparently they have a filter they can activate and deactivate that brightens lighter pixels and darkens darker ones, causing the halo and probably due to its nature sharpens the object by increasing contrast. its software based.

iirc this was said by the flir technician mick interviewed.
 

FatPhil

Active Member
apparently they have a filter they can activate and deactivate that brightens lighter pixels and darkens darker ones, causing the halo and probably due to its nature sharpens the object by increasing contrast. its software based.

iirc this was said by the flir technician mick interviewed.

As I said, probably not to dissimilar to this:

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

Domzh

Active Member
true. however this isnt proof the blob wasnt already "sharp" without the enhancement.

do we know if this enhancement filter is also available in tv mode?
 

Domzh

Active Member
QUESTION: Chris mentioned something that could be important (maybe it isnt at all). the targeting pod can be mounted on the wings or at the jets belly.

could this have an impact on the moment when the gimbal rotates?

that it might show values that make us assume it had to rotate when in fact it wouldnt need to?
 

jarlrmai

Active Member
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
bird_up "Gimbal UFO video rendered in 3D" by Abominati0n UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 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
D F-16 Pilot- Chris Lehto analyses Gimbal footage UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 284
D 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 27
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
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, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
S Does this video footage show a dragon (sea serpent) attacking a manatee? [No] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
A USS Omaha UFO / UAP Radar Video UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 238
CeruleanBlu Video summary of Independent Forensic Team Report on Oroville Dam Oroville Dam 1
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, 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 Air Force UFO Video? [Oil Rigs] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 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] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 132
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
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top