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

Itsme

Active Member
I don't know about you, but I'm feeling increasingly tedious and nerdy discussing the details of the details of the details of a small video fragment of a UAP case we hardly know anything else about.

I did the best I can to explain my case. If people do not agree, that's fine. But I don't think a further discussion will lead to anything new at this moment.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
And what does this image tell exactly?
1626086929590.png

That specular reflected light bends back into itself?
No.
This is an overlay of three diagrams that show the strength of the signal as function of the angle, i.e. a function plot in polar coordinates.

In a common x/y diagram, you choose an x value and read off the corresponding y value; in these diagrams, you choose an angle and read off the corresponding value.

To dismiss knowledge and contributions you do not understand is an ineffective way to learn and an annoying way to have a conversation.
 

Cassi O

Active Member
I think the major problem with the `rotating glare caused by rotating window' hypothesis lies in the ATFLIR optics.

The ATFLIR optics is basically an extreme telephoto lens, constructed with mirrors instead of lenses. The first mirror (12 in the picture) is the entrance area of the lens:
1625737446228.png
(picture was taken from one of the Raytheon patents)

Not Glare or Diffraction caused by an obstruction, it's Coma.​

"The dominant off-axis aberration in the Newtonian is coma; astigmatism is low in comparison."

1626347340569.png

source: https://www.telescope-optics.net/newtonian_off_axis_aberrations.htm

I don't think coma is an issue for larger closer objects normally viewed by the targeting pod, but would be apparent for a planet with parallel rays of light. I thought of this after seeing the Raytheon patents image above, and my analysis of the targets line of bearing here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/gi...lines-of-bearing-and-or-dcs.11836/post-253580
 
Last edited:

Itsme

Active Member

Not Glare or Diffraction caused by an obstruction, it's Coma.​

"The dominant off-axis aberration in the Newtonian is coma; astigmatism is low in comparison."

1626347340569.png

source: https://www.telescope-optics.net/newtonian_off_axis_aberrations.htm

I don't think coma is an issue for larger closer objects normally viewed by the targeting pod, but would be apparent for a planet with parallel rays of light. I thought of this after seeing the Raytheon patents image above, and my analysis of the targets line of bearing here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/gi...lines-of-bearing-and-or-dcs.11836/post-253580
That's an interesting claim. But any optical aberration caused by an imperfect entrance mirror shape is independent of light intensity and therefore should equally distort the whole image area, and this image-filling distortion would NOT rotate with the gimbal because of the de-rotation device that compensates any rotation of the image caused by the rotating Gimbal. The idea of the glare hypothesis is that a glare can rotate independent from the image.
 
Last edited:

Cassi O

Active Member
That's an interesting claim. But any optical aberration caused by an imperfect entrance mirror shape is independent of light intensity and therefore should equally distort the whole image area, and this image-filling distortion would NOT rotate with the gimbal because of the de-rotation device that compensates any rotation of the image caused by the rotating Gimbal. The idea of the glare hypothesis is that a glare can rotate independent from the image.

The coma aberration is caused by the off-axis design, not the shape of the mirror.

With astronomical telescope coma is most noticeable for individual bright stars towards the outer edge of the FoV.
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Senior Member.
Not true @Cassi O .

A Three Mirror Anastigmat design is specifically used and designed to prevent spherical aberrations like astigmatism and also coma. Not saying it is completely free of aberrations (mis-alignment of the optics will introduce massive amount of aberration), but highly unlikely.

Here is a good read-up.
 

Itsme

Active Member
The coma aberration is caused by the off-axis design, not the shape of the mirror.

With astronomical telescope coma is most noticeable for individual bright stars towards the outer edge of the FoV.
Ah, I see. I thought the red and blue curved lines at the mirror (see picture below, from one of your links) were supposed to depict an ideal and a distorted mirror. What they show is that an off-axis object that is not right in front of the mirror will cause some deformation of its reflected light wave fronts purely due to physics, so even in an ATFLIR that is designed perfectly without any flaws.

I don't think this plays a role in the gimbal video, because:
1. The ATFLIR will focus on the object it is tracking, so I would expect this object to NOT be off axis.
2. If an ATFLIR would show this kind of distortion by design, every jet or other bright object in its image would look like a UFO. That seems highly unlikely to me.

Have you checked the order of magnitude of this distortion we could expect in an ATFLIR? I bet it's so small it can be neglected.

Screenshot_2021-07-15-16-21-57-634~2.jpeg
 

Cassi O

Active Member
Not true @Cassi O .

A Three Mirror Anastigmat design is specifically used and designed to prevent spherical aberrations like astigmatism and also coma. Not saying it is completely free of aberrations (mis-alignment of the optics will introduce massive amount of aberration), but highly unlikely.

Here is a good read-up.
Your wiki article does not talk about an off-axis mirror. It makes sense that the targeting system would use an off-axis design to eliminate the central obstruction (and potential blind spot for small close targets).
 
Last edited:

Cassi O

Active Member
Ah, I see. I thought the red and blue curved lines at the mirror (see picture below, from one of your links) were supposed to depict an ideal and a distorted mirror. What they show is that an off-axis object that is not right in front of the mirror will cause some deformation of its reflected light wave fronts purely due to physics, so even in an ATFLIR that is designed perfectly without any flaws.

I don't think this plays a role in the gimbal video, because:
1. The ATFLIR will focus on the object it is tracking, so I would expect this object to NOT be off axis.
2. If an ATFLIR would show this kind of distortion by design, every jet or other bright object in its image would look like a UFO. That seems highly unlikely to me.

Have you checked the order of magnitude of this distortion we could expect in an ATFLIR? I bet it's so small it can be neglected.

Screenshot_2021-07-15-16-21-57-634~2.jpeg

Since the mirror configuration is tilted to eliminate the central obstruction, any light entering it will be off-axis, that's the nature of the design.
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Senior Member.
Your wiki article does not talk about an off-axis mirror. It makes sense that the targeting system would use an off-axis design to eliminate the central obstruction (and potential blind spot for small close targets).

The system used in the ATFLIR pod is a TMA. I explained why it is called an anastigmat, namely it has per definition NO aberrations.. You claim "because it is off axis, therefore we see aberrations", this is false.
 

Cassi O

Active Member
The system used in the ATFLIR pod is a TMA. I explained why it is called an anastigmat, namely it has per definition NO aberrations.. You claim "because it is off axis, therefore we see aberrations", this is false.
Got it, the ATFLIR was designed as an Off-axis three-mirror anastigmat.

Still, it was designed for viewing relatively close targets, and may perform differently if pointed at a bright planet, which is more of a point source rather than an extended light source.
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
Got it, the ATFLIR was designed as an Off-axis three-mirror anastigmat.

Still, it was designed for viewing relatively close targets, and may perform differently if pointed at a bright planet, which is more of a point source rather than an extended light source.
Still, no aberration should be visible. If there is one thing that optical engineers hate, it is aberrations. So, you can count on it that the ATFLIR is designed properly. If there is any aberration left in there, it is smaller than the camera can resolve.

Also, the telescope (TMA) is not the only optical element needed to create an image, you need an objective system too (likely also mirror based). So the optics can be pretty complex (meaning that the image in post 804 is not the full optics, just generalised).
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
So I did some digging around and found something to fill in a gap I had with the full symbology of what the ATFLIR was showing.

At around 2 seconds into the gimbal video the text ADV-M4 OK appears on the FLIR display above the speed indicators

1628342079944.png

What does this mean I did some digging into the manual ADV is an advisory and M4 related to Mode 4 for the IFF system

Page 538 of

https://www.metabunk.org/attachment...nnell-douglas-fighter-a1-f18ac-nfm-pdf.44932/

Says

"If the transponder is replying to valid mode 4 interrogations, the M4 OK advisory is displayed on the left DDI."

"The option 4 selection is used for enabling/ disabling the secure mode"

So I think this either means the transponder was on and in secure mode or was actively responding, it's hard to tell.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Source: https://twitter.com/OMApproach/status/1511850016301891589


This tweet contains a partially redacted description of the GIMBAL encounter.

For me the main standouts seem to be that they claim to have a stable track file and also that they thought that it was a simulated targets as part of COMPUTEX.

So there a few interesting things here
  • If they had a track, a stable track, then the could have slaved the ATFLIR to it, yet the video shows an unslaved ATFLIR.
  • If they had a track and were interested in it they would have likely made it L+S, yet the conversation indicates some confusion between the two operators, i.e. "THAT NOT L+S"
  • Now also confirmed from this release as a two seater F/18 as WSO is mentioned.
Possible scenario
  1. Obtain track on COMPTUEX simulated target (likely synthetic track injected into the MSI by the exercise controllers)
  2. Synthetic track is close (the 7-10NM Ryan Graves mentioned)
  3. SLAVE ATFLIR to track, but nothing there as its simulated.
  4. Unslave ATFLIR, but maintain synthetic target as L+S
  5. Manually slew/zoom ATFLIR in general direction of track, obtain on autotrack by chance a distant jet (~30NM) but maintain L+S on synthetic track ie no auto track correlation switch on ATFLIR target is done, unlike perhaps Go Fast.
  6. Watch jet (glare) via ATFLIR which then performs GIMBAL roll adjustments as seen.
  7. Make the error that that seen object is the track object.
This is basically the same theory has has been discussed before here, except now we have a concrete (COMPTUEX) source for the fake radar target, rather than a glitch as theorised before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_Training_Unit_Exercise
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
This tweet contains a partially redacted description of the GIMBAL encounter.
It links to a PDF (attached) with a Navy FOIA response and an email report on a Jan 16, 2019, "pilot brief":
DON-NAVY-2022-001613.pdf
https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/navy/DON-NAVY-2022-001613.pdf
ALL documents pertaining to a January 2019 briefing by an F-18 pilot from VFA-103, stationed at Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. This briefing was revealed in FOIA Case DON-NAVY-2021-010546, and was referred to in the following way: "Anomalous Aerial Vehicle Encounter brief to SASC PSMs. On 16 Jan, an F/A-18 pilot from VFA-103, met with SASC PSMs. SASC PSMs have continuing interest in unidentified aerial vehicle intercepts that have occurred in the working airspace off the U.S. east coast, and gave a detailed brief on his personal encounter"
Content from External Source
SASC = Senate Armed Services Committee = United States Senate Committee on Armed Services
PSM = Professional Staff Members

Page 7 refers to "range fowlers", I take that as a typo for "range foulers", i.e. unauthorized intruders to the military manoeuver area.

Why would they redact the shape of the glare of a distant plane?
Content from External Source
It's about what the pilots compare the shape to: this can reveal what they expected to see during the exercise, and that'd be classified.
 

Attachments

  • DON-NAVY-2022-001613.pdf
    859.2 KB · Views: 47
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
It links to a PDF (attached) with a Navy FOIA response and an email report on a Jan 16, 2019, "pilot brief":
DON-NAVY-2022-001613.pdf
https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/navy/DON-NAVY-2022-001613.pdf
ALL documents pertaining to a January 2019 briefing by an F-18 pilot from VFA-103, stationed at Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia. This briefing was revealed in FOIA Case DON-NAVY-2021-010546, and was referred to in the following way: "Anomalous Aerial Vehicle Encounter brief to SASC PSMs. On 16 Jan, an F/A-18 pilot from VFA-103, met with SASC PSMs. SASC PSMs have continuing interest in unidentified aerial vehicle intercepts that have occurred in the working airspace off the U.S. east coast, and gave a detailed brief on his personal encounter"
Content from External Source
Thanks for the official source.
 

Domzh

Active Member
@jarlrmai you dont need superiors to inject a synthetic track into the system. if im not mistaken a system like nemesis should be able to spoof movement on radar and ir and therefore simulate single specific crafts or entire fleets, according to official navy documents. im gonna search and link them
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
@jarlrmai you dont need superiors to inject a synthetic track into the system. if im not mistaken a system like nemesis should be able to spoof movement on radar and ir and therefore simulate single specific crafts or entire fleets, according to official navy documents. im gonna search and link them
Yeah I meant by exercise controller, whatever was controlling the exercise. Human/computer etc. There should be a log of that track insertion somewhere I imagine?
 

Domzh

Active Member
why do you assume it had to be "inserted"?

it could be a real track that was not part of comptuex or it could be a spoofed track that the radar generated itself based on real information it acquired
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Page 7 refers to "range fowlers", I take that as a typo for "range foulers", i.e. unauthorized intruders to the military manoeuver area.
From the ONI's Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, 25 June 2021:
U.S. Navy aviators define a “range fouler” as an activity or object that interrupts pre-planned training or other military activity in a military operating area or restricted airspace.
Content from External Source
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
why do you assume it had to be "inserted"?

it could be a real track that was not part of comptuex or it could be a spoofed track that the radar generated itself based on real information it acquired

If it were a real track, of an object visible to ATFLIR then they would SLAVE and see something.

Yes it could be that it was a glitched RADAR track and this was a theory before this release, but given that the WSO had reason to mention COMPTUEX, we now have concrete reason for there being a discrepancy between RADAR and visual. And a reason the ATFLIR was deslaved in the video.

This is the point of my post, adding the information of "WSO though it could be COMPTUEX" means there is a known source of tracks that are not objects. Which explains a few more thing about the vide and also gives a reason for the confusion.
 

Domzh

Active Member
do we know if "simulated track" refers to a spoofed signature that is external or does this implicate a simulation within their systems?

hence my prior question. i dont think thats clear and it could very well mean they know that spoofing is a thing and just label it as "simulated".
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
do we know if "simulated track" refers to a spoofed signature that is external or does this implicate a simulation within their systems?
It's a term that could be both, simulated implies more to me that its data only rather than some device that creates a fake radar response, but the US Military can be odd with it's terms.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Vandal Land forces used A-4's and Lear Jets to practice electronic warfare on the TR Battle Group. [...] In addition, planes will be attacking simulated and real targets afloat and ashore.
Content from External Source
Yeah simulated could mean everything from an inflatable tank tethered to the ground to a line of data entered into a targeting system as if it were a real target.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Wouldn't that be a real target? Like the paper cutout on the shooting range isn't a real person, but a real target?
It depends on how they classify things, as always the way the military defines words play a lot into the interpretation of events, it really does help to know exactly what they mean.

You get the terms mixed up in battle and bombs end up in the wrong place. So they tend to have very serious meanings behind each term internally, us knowing them is half the battle.

For instance is what they can call unidentified (U/I)

1649342154240.png
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Yes. It's unidentified in the military sense because we don't know who operates it: friend, foe, neutral?
Exactly the military uses terms in a more specific and often precise way which might vary from everyday usage leading to confusion when reading and interpreting military statements.
 

RTM

Member
So is GIMBAL the one video that modern UFOology is resting on? I don't see the same fuss over ATFLIR, GOFAST or those those released by Corbell (the 2D pyramid etc.).
 
Last edited:

flarkey

Senior Member
So is GIMBAL the one b=video that modern UFOology is resting on? I don't see the same fuss over ATFLIR, GOFAST or those those released by Corbell (the 2D pyramid etc.).
Its the one that Mick has done a lot of work into explaining. It seems they want to prove him wrong.
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
Its the one that Mick has done a lot of work into explaining. It seems they want to prove him wrong.
Every other day there is someone on reddit trying to disprove / discredit / scold / Mick, for his vision on the Gimbal one, it is hilarious.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
It's the one where the explanation is the hardest to get over easily also it has Ryan Graves representing for it.
 

RTM

Member
Is it the rotation that's the main point of contention? I know not every UFOologist is on the aliens camp, but let's face it the majority are, but is the rotation the only thing that's standing between aliens and not aliens?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Is it the rotation that's the main point of contention? I know not every UFOologist is on the aliens camp, but let's face it the majority are, but is the rotation the only thing that's standing between aliens and not aliens?
Anything can be aliens if you really want it to be (cf. lizard people).

The rotation just looked very unusual, and at first glance unexplainable, and that's when the extraterrestrial/paranormal/supernatural explanations can gain mindshare.

After that, it's just people defending their beliefs, because that's easier than changing your mind.

But yeah, without the rotation it's just a blurry target flying along with no unusual characteristics.
 
Last edited:
Top