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

[elevenaugust]

25010 = Altitude in feet
B = ?????????

The "B" next to the altitude means the altitude is calculated on Barometric pressure, an R would indicate Radar altitude.

"TAC" or "TACT" refers to the main menu type, i-e either "Tactical" or "Support" (SUPT). (TAC) contains options for combat-oriented systems such as radar and stores management, and (SUPT) is used to access non-combat functions such as navigation and maintenance modes.

 

[igoddard]

There's a great example of fighter jets on FLIR here, which I compare side-by-side to the Gimbal UFO below. I've also posted that comparison on video here. Suppose we only had the snippet of this fighter-jet footage before the FLIR zooms in enough to see the actual jets. We could then say much of what the proponents of the Gimbal video say about it, that these UFOs have no wings or visible propulsion system and appear to be propelled at high speeds by technology not present in the inventory of any military force. Lol! Then all that "analysis" vanishes in a split second with a quick zoom. So it seems likely we're in that same epistemic hole with the Gimbal footage.

However, there's a notable difference with the Gimbal object and any other aircraft-FLIR video comparator I've seen, which is that the Gimbal object has a reasonably consistent (and so coherent) detailed curvilinear outline throughout the clip, curves that are even artistic, or aesthetic, in nature. In contrast, the available (and very limited number of) examples of jets on FLIR resemble blobs with very fuzzy edges. So it's possible that the Gimbal shape closely reflects the actual mechanical design of the object.

For that reason I've been pounding away on google for some kind of rigid weather balloon or blimp that could fit the bill. Which raises an important question I don't have data for, which is: How fast is the Gimbal UFO moving? It may in fact not be moving as much as the footage seems to imply. Most importantly, we need to know if such a blimp can rotate as seen, and gets as hot (black) as the Gimbal object. That last point may refute the blimp hypothesis because I suspect a blimp on FLIR would show thermal variance from sunlit side (darker) to its shaded side (lighter), but the Gimbal object looks pretty hot, and uniformly so across its apparent shape.

 

[Mick West]

Suppose we only had the snippet of this fighter-jet footage before the FLIR zooms in enough to see the actual jets. We could then say much of what the proponents of the Gimbal video say about it, that these UFOs have no wings or visible propulsion system and appear to be propelled at high speeds by technology not present in the inventory of any military force. Lol! Then all that "analysis" vanishes in a split second with a quick zoom.

You can use the vegetation patterns to display both zoom levels are the same scale.

Note this is not so much the planes being to small to make out any detail. Even if we reduce the horizontal resolution to 380 pixels, we get this:

So what we are seeing is the IR glare being bigger than the actual plane, and covering up any detail.

 

[Mick West]

However, there's a notable difference with the Gimbal object and any other aircraft-FLIR video comparator I've seen, which is that the Gimbal object has a reasonably consistent (and so coherent) detailed curvilinear outline throughout the clip, curves that are even artistic, or aesthetic, in nature. In contrast, the available (and very limited number of) examples of jets on FLIR resemble blobs with very fuzzy edges. So it's possible that the Gimbal shape closely reflects the actual mechanical design of the object.

I don't think the GIMBAL object is particularly detailed. I think it's a essentially an IR glare that has been smeared out a bit in a few directions by the glass cover, as I explained here:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcsAZTKRv5E

 

[elevenaugust]

It might be useful to get a more comprehensive explanation of the display overlay above, as the might be clues.

V = ???????

Regarding this "V", looks like it's a TDC assignment symbol. "TDC" stands for "Throttle Designator Controller" and the symbology design it as a diamond displayed on the upper right corner of the DDI. If I understand correctly the NATOPS manual (F/A-18E-F Super Hornet), you can then have either:
- ◊ : TDC control is assigned to both cockpits
- ^ : TDC control is assigned to front cockpit
- v : TDC control is assigned to rear cockpit

So SLEW here is not active, and the TDC control is done by the rear cockpit.

Definition of the TDC:

 

[igoddard]

Mick, wow, fantastic analysis! So it seems the thermal shape of a fighter jet on a FLIR screen might entirely overlap its actual form. Also, variable contrast settings on a specific camera or its software might artificially etch out a crisper edge than another FLIR system with different contrast settings.

Here's a rough-sketch model of a possible configuration that keeps the rear-end view of a jet straight down the line-of-sight of the target-pod's camera as stipulated by the FLIR-screen data starting at 54˚ Left and ending the clip @ 6˚ Right...

Though it's possible a dead-on rear view isn't even necessary for a strong and stable thermal signature with a similar impression. We should want hundreds of hours of FLIR-jet footage to know the range of possibilities.

What puzzles me is the fast motion of clouds that seem to be further than the object, but that could be an illusion. The fast motion of the clouds across the field of view seems to suggest they're not so far away. All that in turn creates an impression (an easily false impression) that perhaps the object is not even more than a mile away. I've seen your distance analysis. The distance to the object is another missing datapoint from the highly-selective release that is allegedly accompanied by "chain of custody documents" but in fact lacks even a scintilla of supplementary documentation. In many ways it's foolhardy to even be guessing on this lacking any supplementary case data, except I guess for those of us who just like tackling a 'What is it?' mystery.

 

[Mick West]

What puzzles me is the fast motion of clouds that seem to be further than the object, but that could be an illusion. The fast motion of the clouds across the field of view seems to suggest they're not so far away. All that in turn creates an impression (an easily false impression) that perhaps the object is not even more than a mile away.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is making some gross simplifications about the turn rate and path of the jet, but I reckon it's in the ballpark.

 

[Mick West]

Here's a better animation synced with the video. It's illustrative of the size of the angles involved and the angular motion of the clouds.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sHmuP_LIxI

A simplification of the general movement of the GIMBAL UFO. Here the UFO is NOT moving. The Jet executes a 60° arc turn. The pink line is the line of sight from the jet ot the UFO (marked with distance in miles, staring at 15 miles), the clouds seen in the video are behind the UFO, so as the pink line moves left, the clouds move right. Note the slowdown of the pink line as it approaches the end. The actual paths are likely more complex, but this demonstrates the general idea.

 

[igoddard]

The Gimbal object starts to rotate most notably as the LoS to it becomes 2˚ L and it continues rotating as the LoS changes to 4˚ R. So the target rotated most as the jet's vector pointed most directly at it. That would be when the jet was closing its distance to the target at the fastest rate in the clip. Coincidence? Well...

That fact harkens this observation, wherein an overloaded target rotates as distance to it changes...

Here's a video showing a rotating flare, with large rotation for small camera movements.
http://www.military.com/video/opera...trikes/f-18-takes-out-insurgents/658386321001
View attachment 30687

That overloaded signature seems to rotate clockwise as the aircraft moves further away and rotate counter-clockwise as it approaches the target (using the ELV screen data to determine distance). That effect might be caused by the camera adjusting its focus to changing focal relations. Also important to note, there's no rotation of the camera even as that overloaded target rotates, which is also sometimes true of the Gimbal camera and target.

The smooth mechanical rotation of that overloaded target above strikes me as the same smooth mechanical rotation we see in the Gimbal FLIR's overloaded target. So even given differences in the shape of this vs the Gimbal target, having watched the Gimbal footage 10 thousand times, looking at this signature feels like the same kind of motion.

 

[igoddard]

I've posted the lens-flare rotation cropped out here.



I found a mathematical study of FLIR artifacts with an equation for lens flares here (Eq 2).

Someone on a jet-fighter forum also noticed and articulated the basic observation about the Gimbal object undergirding the focal-adjustment hypothesis for the rotation outlined above:

"Note that the 'rotation' coincides with the flir azimuth reaching zero degrees L/R of ADL. Again, I don't fly with these pods, but I think that's significant and possibly indicative of an optical artifact as it's tracked across the ADL."​

Bang! The Gimbal rotates markedly only as the camera's LoS to it sweeps across 0˚. Gee, what a coincidence! As that poster makes clear, on its face that relationship seems nonrandom. Perhaps the tracking system has a built in protocol that automatically activates a focal adjustment (that causes a counter-clockwise rotation for any overloaded bleed-over target) when the target hits straight ahead based on the logical likelihood that distance thereto will rapidly diminish.

 

[igoddard]

Comparison of Gimbal's rotation to that of the FLIR-lens flare...



Notice that both show similar smooth mechanical rotation.

Note: I reversed the speed of the lens-flare clip and increased its speed to 111% to match the angles of both. Is that fair to do? I believe so because the full clip also above proves the flare rotates both clockwise and counter-clockwise and rotates at many speeds ranging from fast to static. So direction and speed appear to be variables (likely based on the speed of focal adjustments) such that reversing and increasing speed only produce an expected possible condition, and most importantly do not affect the smoothness of the motion across a span of time, which is the similarity I'm fleshing out... both rotations are similarly smooth and mechanical.

 

[PCWilliams]

It would see like the obvious thing to do would be to try to replicate the video. If the military were genuinely interested they could just get one jet to follow another at various distances, and film the whole thing with their ATFLIR. It could be done just as part of normal training.

This IS the question. When this video was analyzed by the DOD and others, what investigative steps were taken? Trying to replicate results seems to be a no-brainer first step towards narrowing the realm of possibilities.

 

[igoddard]

This IS the question. When this video was analyzed by the DOD and others, what investigative steps were taken? Trying to replicate results seems to be a no-brainer first step towards narrowing the realm of possibilities.

Exactly! And what it took to pass their 'anomalous test' was simply a few assumed experts exhausting their off-the-cuff inventory of other possible explanations. It also exhausted my inventory. But we then did some research. The volunteers in this thread could have saved taxpayers millions!

Switching gears... I tested the hypothesis that Gimbal rotation would hit 45˚ as the Line of Sight (LoS) hits 0˚. The hypothesis did not pass the test, as depicted below. That perfect relation would sure seem to statistically eliminate the odds of a chance relationship. However, the results show that Gimbal's rotational angles are exceedingly close to 45˚ as LoS passes over 0˚...

So I'm still easily compelled that there's a nonrandom relationship between Gimbal rotation and LoS = 0˚ and that that relation implies there is a tracking-system algorithm that auto-adjusts focal length related to expected distance to target, which would be expected to close rapidly as a target reaches 0˚, ie, becomes straight forward of a jet.

The rotational angles are slightly off 45˚ by trivial differences considering a tracking system engaging focal adjustments as a real target reaches 0˚ in real-world conditions is facing enormous speeds, target variance and then add in response times of myriad hard- and software components going into processing an output screen image. Given all that real-world complexity, this closeness is, imo, too much to be random even without being dead on 45˚.

 

[igoddard]

I don't think the GIMBAL object is particularly detailed. I think it's a essentially an IR glare that has been smeared out a bit in a few directions by the glass cover, as I explained here:

Mick, your case for the window on the housing causing the rotation presents the best hypothesis! Sorry, I should have studied your presentation and the pod more carefully before hypothesizing a focal-adjustment cause. Would the housing window have reason to rotate as the target's LoS reaches 0˚? That relationship seems likely to be nonrandom. Of course it is rotating from 54˚L to 6˚R, but presumably the motion that causes the target's counter-clockwise rotation would be along another axis.

In looking for causes of FLIR flares, this source seems to say they can come from "reflections inside the optical system."

"Third, a second source placed at a different point in the object plane Ps(ys,zs) may have a contribution to the illuminance E(y',z') because of complex multiple reflections inside the optical system. These types of artefacts are referred to as 'lens flare' in the field of photography." source​

If FLIR flares can be caused by components inside the optical system, focal adjustments might affect those components and in turn flares. But that's just conjecture while your hypothesis is backed with a proof-of-concept demo...

 

[bume]

Glad to see these videos being analyzed here.

I have read several articles about these, but it seems surprisingly difficult to find answers to some basic questions, some of which would seem like obvious and easy for reporters to ask while interviewing Elizondo for example.

That Nimitz case seems much more interesting with all the reported details and that pilot speaking about it publicly. But apparently we have nothing except the video in this Gimbal case?

Apparently in the Nimitz case they didn't have a problem to publish that it happened near a major US city. Considering the main (non-alien) explanations, that would basically mean they were happy to either publish a video and descriptions of some secret advanced US tech, that some other nation would have dominant control of their own airspace (as it is described in the Nimitz report), or that their pilots don't have the skills or equipment to identify something more mundane even in their own airspace. So why couldn't they release similar information in that Gimbal case? Does that hint it happened abroad, possibly somewhere they don't want to admit having been? I mean, if it is OK to publish such video, why couldn't they reveal something like it happened during a practice mission above Nevada or something?

According to Washington Post, the release of those videos was arranged by Luis Elizondo, who has emphasized in various interviews how they had scientific approach to investigation and that he knows more than he can share. Even if he couldn't share details like time and place of this Gimbal case, surely he could say whether he himself had such details and official reports and if they interviewed eyewitnesses etc. Has anyone asked? That could already rule out at least some possibilities discussed here, like them unknowingly looking at some random video of an equipment test or such.

It would be also interesting to know if these were Elizondo's first choices to be published or if he more or less asked for everything and these happened to be cleared. After all, he has stated they had plenty of cases and that the "existence of supremely advanced unidentified aircraft" has now been "proven beyond reasonable doubt". Yet this video by itself would hardly convince anyone to that degree, so I'm left with the feeling that he at least should know more to consider it among the best.

I'm also wondering whether there should already be some official public records somewhere that contain what has been published or authorize TTS to make them public, or how does it work? I'm also baffled how they can publicly acknowledge something like the existence of some secret storage facility possessing mystery UFO alloys that "physically affect people who interact with them", yet unable to say more about those. I'm having a hard time imagining an NDA with that sort of boundaries.

As for the explanations discussed here, most of them need to assume that the "fleet" on the radar the pilots discussed wasn't real or connected to what was seen on IR, right? So that seems to be quite a pivotal detail. Does that display reveal if radar had a target on the same place? Also, could that system lock a target to just some optical issue or does that mean there has to be a real physical target within some range?

 

[deirdre]

I'm also wondering whether there should already be some official public records somewhere that contain what has been published or authorize TTS to make them public, or how does it work?

You can send a Freedom of Information request. For the Nimitz case, this would be easy as you would request any and all documentation and media relating to a specific time frame or relating to a specific pilot etc. The Gimbal case would cost you a fortune and a half as no details have been released. If you send a FOIA request for exceptionally large files (ie everything the program collected) they often make you pay per page after a certain amount. You would have to look up the FOIA statutes relating to the Federal government.

 

[giantleap]

I have read several articles about these, but it seems surprisingly difficult to find answers to some basic questions, some of which would seem like obvious and easy for reporters to ask while interviewing Elizondo for example.

Yes frustrating indeed. 15 mins fielding questions on metabunk would be immensely valuable. Elizondo hints at a trove of data analysis on the entire program in an interview with NPR:

"We had Ph.D.s, we had CI people, we had trained intelligence officers and human case officers — pretty much a full range of talent. Most of us tend to be, by nature, skeptical, because we are in the field of intelligence and national security. But I think once you get into the data itself and the specifics regarding what we're actually seeing, we begin to realize that there may be something here, a little bit more than just what people think are drones or whatever people may chalk it up to be.....


First of all, we looked at it and wanted to make sure if this was authentic. Is this video coming from a true [Department of Defense] platform? Then what we do is apply some analytics that allow us to look at range, altitude, what was the aircraft doing that we were flying, who's flying it, under what conditions, sea states. So there's a lot of things at play into what we're looking at.

And then at that point, we try to look at what we're seeing at the video and cross-reference it to anything that we may know that is currently in our inventory — so whether they be drones, commercial aircraft, military aircraft, missiles — whatever they may be. There is a great deal of effort by the department to make sure that we always can identify what is flying — whether it is in our airspace or any other airspace.

There's a lot of rigor and diligence that's placed in looking at these, and there is some real talent in the department and in other agencies within the U.S. government that have just an incredible battery of tools to apply toward these things to make sure we know what we're looking at...."

Source: https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/571868263/secret-program-at-the-pentagon-spent-million-to-study-ufos

 

[Mick West]

I was told by an anonymous email that two people "scored the info, circumstances et al, around the "Gimbal" footage mystery". I contacted one of them and they said "What I suggest you do is write to TTSA or maybe George Knapp or someone and ask." George Knapp is the Las Vegas TV journalist and Coast-to-Coast host who has been granted access to TTSA.

It seems to me like the situation is simply being played for publicity.

 

[bume]

Yes frustrating indeed. 15 mins fielding questions on metabunk would be immensely valuable.

That could well be within the realms of possibility. I found this article:

http://heavy.com/news/2017/12/luis-elizondo-department-of-defense-dod-ufo-to-the-stars-bio/

Which links to a forum where Elizondo apparently answered to questions about himself (as Lue):

https://www.theparacast.com/forum/t...nges-tts-aas-money-making-media-empire.18710/

Not only that, but he proposed to have a call or a face to face meeting with one of the members there and seems like that (phone call probably) actually happened. So if someone like Mick would contact him, he might very well be willing to answer some questions.

 

[bume]

You can send a Freedom of Information request. For the Nimitz case, this would be easy as you would request any and all documentation and media relating to a specific time frame or relating to a specific pilot etc. The Gimbal case would cost you a fortune and a half as no details have been released. If you send a FOIA request for exceptionally large files (ie everything the program collected) they often make you pay per page after a certain amount. You would have to look up the FOIA statutes relating to the Federal government.

So reportedly in this case, the material has been released because of an internal memo made by Elizondo, and TTSA has probably received it through some direct connections and not by FOIA? And then TTSA has given (parts of) that to select media and now they seem to be promoting themselves by giving limited access to information that in principle is already officially public?

 

[igoddard]

Do we even rightfully know that the target is a flying object? What evidence do we have that it's not, as Mick's analysis above suggests it could be, stationary but also on land or sea? Note that the FLIR is pointed -2˚ below. So could it be aimed at distant land we can't otherwise make out?

In other words, could this be a rerun of the Mexican Air Force FLIR misidentification?



Terrestrially explained @ alcione.org/FAM/FLIR_CONCLUSION.html

 

[Mick West]

Do we even rightfully know that the target is a flying object? What evidence do we have that it's not, as Mick's analysis above suggests it could be, stationary but also on land or sea? Note that the FLIR is pointed -2˚ below. So could it be aimed at distant land we can't otherwise make out?

In other words, could this be a rerun of the Mexican Air Force FLIR misidentification?

I don't think so, as movement of the clouds works best if they are behind and below the object.

2° down gives a relative altitude from distance of 184 feet per mile away, so 1800 feet at 10 miles, and 18,000 feet at 100 miles.

 

[deirdre]

So reportedly in this case, the material has been released because of an internal memo made by Elizondo, and TTSA has probably received it through some direct connections and not by FOIA? And then TTSA has given (parts of) that to select media and now they seem to be promoting themselves by giving limited access to information that in principle is already officially public?

if it's unclassified you can get it through FOIA. If it's classified Elizondo is in serious trouble for releasing it.. which I have to think he would know.

 

[igoddard]

This is probably a clue to the rotation-causing mechanism in the FLIR system. Notice in the military-action FLIR footage, we see a rapid 180˚ flare rotation and when it comes to a dead stop (suggesting a mechanical limit is hit) it almost seems to 'slam' to the stop and then the entire scene pivots in the direction of the rotation. It's as if the rapid 180˚ motion was caused by a component that exerted force on another component that defines the scene's orientation (the camera?).



My gut sense is the scene pivot reflects the camera's position and so whatever rotated is directly attached to the camera. Notice too that the ELV data seems to change from 183F to 122F (reading that data is not easy). But I have trouble believing the jet is only 183 feet away or that, across the length of the whole clip, it's elevation would be so erratic. So I don't know what to make of the ELV data.

 

[bume]

2° down gives a relative altitude

Video says it's "2° below aircraft axis". Does that mean the primary axis as if the wings were level (or like measured as if it was looking straight ahead from the nose, as in "forward-looking")? So in this case that would be equal to level ground, as the altitude is more or less constant. It can't be relative to a plane that is in 20° angle turn as the value stays the same even as the plane banks and camera rotates.

As for the Mexico UFO, they only had flir without radar returns, if I remember it right, whereas in this case they seem to have both (assuming they saw the same thing). If they had this/that fleet on the radar, wouldn't that show their distance and speed as well? They state in the video that "They're all going against the wind. The wind's 120 knots out of the west". If they were actually looking at some plane on the flir that was unconnected to whatever else they saw on the radar, as was also suggested here, wouldn't that have a definite target on the radar and one that would probably stick out as having somewhat different trajectory and speed than the other targets? Also would they see transponder data as well if it had one on (if it was an airliner for example)?

 

[giantleap]

That could well be within the realms of possibility. I found this article:

http://heavy.com/news/2017/12/luis-elizondo-department-of-defense-dod-ufo-to-the-stars-bio/

Which links to a forum where Elizondo apparently answered to questions about himself (as Lue):

https://www.theparacast.com/forum/t...nges-tts-aas-money-making-media-empire.18710/

Not only that, but he proposed to have a call or a face to face meeting with one of the members there and seems like that (phone call probably) actually happened. So if someone like Mick would contact him, he might very well be willing to answer some questions.

I saw the same post of his which led me to think he might come here at some point maybe when the hubbub has died down a bit.

 

[Clouds Givemethewillies]

Video says it's "2° below aircraft axis". Does that mean the primary axis as if the wings were level (or like measured as if it was looking straight ahead from the nose, as in "forward-looking")?

If post #75 is correct, then I take it to be relative to the gimbal forward axis. In that case the rotation of the window could be calculated, and matched to the image 'blur' rotation.

 

[igoddard]

2° down gives a relative altitude from distance of 184 feet per mile away, so 1800 feet at 10 miles, and 18,000 feet at 100 miles.

Given the camera is @ 25,010 ft, the distance to the earth's horizon is 194 miles. If I understand your numbers, I think that means its 2˚ down LoS could intersect with the earth. No? Other factors you note favoring a flying object aside, it might help define the universe of possible locations. And yes, that's a hell of a distance to imagine an IR source could produce such a large screen signal, but expectations don't always pan out. Perhaps a large forest fire could produce a signal like that over 100 miles away.

 

[igoddard]

Some principles of lens flares from US Patent 7961398 B2:

It is well-understood that (i) the shape of an out-of-focus blur spot or of a lens flare produced by an imaging system is substantially the same as the shape of the imaging system's aperture stop; (ii) the size of the blur spot or lens flare is proportional to the size of the imaging system's aperture stop; and (iii) the orientation of the blur spot or lens flare relative to the detector plane is substantially the same as the orientation of the imaging system's aperture stop relative to the detector plane.
​

Perhaps iii is a clue about a cause of rotation depending on what 'orientation' means.

Based on searchable preview clues the book, Military Avionics Systems, may have a study of veiling glare.

An important professional term is veiling glare. It describes exactly the effect where a hot target exceeds its actual size, which is to say its glare blooms ('bloom' is another keyword) outward veiling the actual target. I found that term used here (example given included below)

and searching thereafter in other highly relevant places. Here's something call the glare-spread function.

 

[giantleap]

I was told by an anonymous email that two people "scored the info, circumstances et al, around the "Gimbal" footage mystery". I contacted one of them and they said "What I suggest you do is write to TTSA or maybe George Knapp or someone and ask." George Knapp is the Las Vegas TV journalist and Coast-to-Coast host who has been granted access to TTSA.

It seems to me like the situation is simply being played for publicity.

I sent an email to George Knapp requesting background information on the Gimbal video and received the following reply today:

"I am told the full provenance of that video will be made public soon. It was shown to the NY Times."

 

[dreams]

Some great info on the program and its finding that we will unlikely ever see, but adds to the story
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/i-team-ufo-study-focused-on-us-military-encounters/885013955
"

Persons familiar with the five year study told the I-Team the effort resulted in three dozen thick reports, some of them several hundred pages in length, as well as another three dozen or so technical reports which projected how this kind of exotic technology might usher in a new era of aviation, and what that might mean."

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/i-team-exclusive-sen-reid-discusses-ufo-study/883885259

"Reid says he is proud to have had a hand in kickstarting the Pentagon study, and contrary to some media reports, the information collected was impressive."
"At its peak, the study had 46 scientists working at the Nevada facility, writing reports and analyzing data that came in from the military. Rapid response teams were dispatched to the scene of UFO events. Over five years, the project cost a total of 22 million. it wasn't a money maker for Bigelow."

It also says more specifics will be made public "including specifics on what was learned during the study, and which UFO incidents were the most unusual." which I can't seem to find, possibly it is being delayed to be released with the full 5 minute footage of the Nimitz event in a new Times article?

 

[Mick West]

Based on searchable preview clues the book, Military Avionics Systems, may have a study of veiling glare.

Seem like that's more about glare on a HUD (Head Up Display) not on a camera image.
https://archive.org/stream/3ml-altyran/Wilmas#page/n493/mode/2up/search/veiling

 

[igoddard]

Found another way to get a lens flare to rotate relative to (a) the viewing video frame and (b) the scene in which its source exists...



One stationary camera records a second camera rotating while facing an LED flashlight. If I posted a video of only footage from the rotating camera, the flare would remain static in the video frame while the scene rotated. But viewing the rotating camera produces a result that's essentially what we see in the footage below, wherein the flare rotates relative to both viewing frame and scene, except the screen data here are locked to the output frame.

Yesterday I read but can't at the moment locate a description of tracking pods on jets that said what the camera actually sees is processed to make sense to the pilot, to correspond to her orientation. So there's complex re-framing that takes place from the raw camera output to the final pilot-screen output. It could be that the two-camera demo above roughly models that and the Gimbal rotation is actually the rotation of the gimbal camera.

That has to make you wonder if the filename for the footage was 'Gimbal' because that was already figured out.

 

[Mick West]

Yesterday I read but can't at the moment locate a description of tracking pods on jets that said what the camera actually sees is processed to make sense to the pilot, to correspond to her orientation. So there's complex re-framing that takes place from the raw camera output to the final pilot-screen output.

Yeah that's what I meant, above:

I suspect that what we see on the screen has an additional level of post-processing rotation to present to the pilot a view that makes sense, but does not reflect the actual position of the optics. This suggests the optical system could make moves that are not seen so much as movements, but change the angle of the camera, and hence change the orientation of the flare.

 

[igoddard]

Here's a schematic of the two-camera demo (above) as a hypothetical rough model for how the tracking system might produce the footage in question. I put the second 'camera' in quotes to note that what it simulates is surely not a second camera in the tracking system but rather some secondary image-processing mechanism that may do comparably what the second camera does in the demo.

 

[Mick West]

Here's a schematic of the two-camera demo (above) as a hypothetical rough model for how the tracking system might produce the footage in question. I put the second 'camera' in quotes to note that what it simulates is surely not a second camera in the tracking system but rather some secondary image-processing mechanism that may do comparably what the second camera does in the demo.

"surely not a second camera"? But perhaps a second gimbal system? As suggested by @Tom Churchill

If the aircraft did anything OTHER than bank at a consistent angle, then yes, you would see the image tilting. Gimbals are described by the number of axes -- something like this is almost positively a 4 axis stabilized imaging system -- 2 course outer axes followed by 2 fine inner axes. Cinematic gimbals like the Cineflex and GSS usually have a 5th axis to roll stabilize them so that the horizon is always level. This clearly doesn't. Some gimbals (such as the Litening Pod) will electronically roll stabilize the horizon -- maybe even newer versions of this, but the video we are seeing is showing what the image looks like at the focal plane array.

[Note, you can click on the little arrow after "said: " in a quote to take you to the original post in the thread.

 

[Mick West]

The Raytheon video actually has a useful image that I'd missed:

 

[igoddard]

I made that clip into an animation...

The yellow path seems to be the complex path of input thermal data before being output to the pilot's monitor. It's easy to lose sight of the yellow path where it overlaps the blue path, but in fact the yellow path runs from the front to the back of this array of components. This animation sure could imply there are de facto two cameras in the system!

I hoped the nifty term "continuous auto-boresight alignment" would find the source of that cool animation, but at least not right away. It seems to refer to a synchronous co-alignment of sensors (presumably FLIR) with the laser, almost certainly reflected where we see the two paths overlap:

"Because its sensors and laser share a common optical path with continuous auto-boresight alignment, only ATFLIR assures pinpoint targeting accuracy that minimizes collateral damage." source​

"The U.S. Navy's targeting pod of record, ATFLIR has been fully integrated and flight-tested on all F/A-18 aircraft models. ATFLIR offers a common optical path and continuous auto-boresight technology that generates the most precise target coordinates available, allowing the warfighter to respond quickly to enemy threats." source​

On @Tom Churchill's point, it's true that the F18's monitor doesn't keep the horizon level and so doesn't have 5th-axis stabilization, but it is keeping the horizon user-oriented, and I'd think that would be the ideal output. To a pilot left banking, their spine (ie, their vertical alignment) is tilting to the left relative to the horizon. The tilt of the clouds in the Gimbal footage reflects that, and so is exactly what the pilot should expect to see wrt the horizon. I'm not disagreeing with anything, just underscoring that there's reason to believe there is a user-orientation function taking place prior to the output monitor image, which is key to the two-camera modeling I propose above.

 

[Peter B]

Thanks to one & all for keeping at the video and associated kit like a swarm of terriers. Fascinating and informative. But I have some questions about the audio on this bit of 'film' that bug me...

1. Is it usual, normal, common practice or what to marry crew conversations with FLIR, radar or TV footage? If it's not (and it's signally missing fro FLIR-1) then how are we to know that it's not lifted from some other event?

2. One of the crew mentions either "LoS" or "L&S", which I interpret as "line of sight" or "lock & steering". Which is more likely or, perhaps more critical, more pertinent as a query from one to the other? My own vague uncomfortable feeling about this, as the radar and FLIR are clearly not synced, is that something odd is going on. Does the question refer to an eyeball sighting? And/or is it a clue that this is a test of the Raytheon kit?

All very frustrating, and partly unanswerable as yet, but a few knowledgable flyboys round here may be able to assist. Some such may also be able to comment on a remark I read somewhere else from a former Signal Corpsman that this exchange sounds remarkably unprofessional for military fliers.

 

[JBenn]

Bit of a long one. I went through most comments...

The change in angle of the camera appears fairly constant

Certainly interested in this idea that the rotation of the object as seen in the clip could simply be due to the window of the AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR. It has been a good read.

one of the writers of the NYT article is Leslie Kean, who bought deeply into the Chilean UFO report.

Don't forget that in 2012 Chile's UFO program, and Leslie Kean, promoted a video showing a fly buzzing around as a genuine UFO. All their "experts" were fooled by a bug.

It's irrelevant to debunking the Gimbal (or Nimitz) clip. The Gimbal clip isn't made any less credible with Kean reporting on it, is it. All this means is that Kean is gullible and possibly gambles with her reputation when acronyms and titles get large enough. That and the CEFAA did a poor job not congruent with their positions.

Given these standards, I'm now doubting everything about this, up to the existence of Elizondo's program.

The DoD confirmed the existence of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program which Elizondo managed didn't they? Sen. Harry Reid has confirmed that he got the funding together for it at least and put a contract out to tender which Bigelow won.

Also, the link between the two videos is unclear. The NY Times specifically linked the two under a same DOD's endorsement, but I'm not really sure that they really come from the same event.

Does anybody have a link to the chain-of-custody documentation regarding these clips? I've seen this referenced on TTSA website under heading 'Implications', but no actual links to PDF's are provided to verify the authenticity of the footage. Exact same issue for Nimitz. A written report is not chain-of-custody documentation for either clip, either.

The disturbing thing about all these videos is that you start any analysis with one hand tied behind your back. No metadata is provided on when/where this was recorded, which normally I would think should be present on a frame-accurate basis. Why THIS particular 33 seconds of the recording? Were they recording before? After?... TTS brags about provenance, but then they don't provide the FOIA letter, response, etc.

Absolutely.

[Mod: Nimitz material removed]