Peings and von Rennenkampff: Reconstruction of Potential Flight Paths for the January 2015 “Gimbal” UAP

(Mendel, I can't figure out how you are responding directly to specific points, if you wouldn't mind letting me know? For now, I will copy and paste.)

Thanks Mendel!

"Now, if you had to decide whether to drop U or T from this hypothetical to explain the GIMBAL video, which one would make the most sense to drop, T or U?"

Of course, drop U. The problem is that the authors do not believe T exists. In fact, they are publicly proclaiming that Mick has not demonstrated a plausible distant path, or that anybody has for that matter. MarikvR stated on twitter six days ago "Not one independent 3D analysis finds what he claims. He must provide verifiable, repeatable evidence for his extraordinary claim."

(I will note that figure A7 in the author's own paper, notes a "fairly straight and level flight path solution," a point for which the authors are apparently backtracking).

To me, it seems the distant path is so "sensitive" to any minor measurement error, that even a remotely straight and level solution within the data seals the deal. But since the authors will apparently not even admit T as a possibility anymore, perhaps a better option is to disprove U? If U's movement depends on V's movement in any demonstrable, continuous way, I feel that would disprove U as a real object (unless this UFO if reacting by the millisecond to the movement of V).

But how might we demonstrate mathematically, that U's movement is dependant upon V's movement, while ignoring T altogether? T is acting on U, but can we show that V is acting on U without respect to T? For example, as V turns toward T, U would need to slow down to continue obstructing T, at a rate that I would assume is directly proportional to the rate of the turn, in some way. How might we show this? There could also be correlations in trajectory. For example, the j hook seems to coincide with V going back on itself (such that "U" would need to reverse course to keep obscuring our view). I expect there is some way to mathematically and conclusively demonstrate this, while ignoring T altogether.

"For the GIMBAL rotation to be related to the J-hook, that rotation should continuously match the curve of that path, and obviously it doesn't."

Marik relies on a video (apparently taken from Sitrec) and asks the viewer to essentially eyeball his claimed relationship. Mick presents an actual graph (which is in the top left of Sitrec) to demonstrate that the four rotations are not even very correlated to the supposed J-hook. Mick separately emailed me a similar graph, which is more detailed, below. I'm not quite sure what every line is, but the red line is plotting the actual degrees of each rotation, and the pink line is plotting the angle of the object trajectory in screen space.

1711782697449.jpeg


Mick also emailed me a second graph, saying "If we adjust the start distance (Tgt Start Dist NM) so that they match better, the distance is 12NM". That graph is below. In it, you can see that the red line and the pink line match better at this distance.

1711782884581.jpeg


The pilots did not report the object at 12NM. That is what was frustrating to me about the video, because it seems Marik's emphasis on the perfect match was intentionally misleading the viewer into thinking there is this one in a million match, right at the distance described by pilots. But if a better match is found at a distance that does not match the pilot testimony, then what is so special about a match at the distance that is described by pilots?

I suppose my general point, is that even if we ignore the distant jet theory, there is questionable logic with the author's own proposed solution, and it can hopefully be demonstrated mathematically. They are positing an extraordinary, world-changing, paradigm-shifting event, and they will apparently not admit the plausibility of the distant jet theory no matter what. I am suggesting there may be ways to challenge "U," within the confines of their own explanation of "U," and without the need to prove "T." I hope I'm right, but like any science minded person, I am willing to admit I am wrong.
 
...and as to my first point, to be clear, I am not suggesting that there is actually an object obscuring another object (although there probably is a glare, obstructing a jet). I use the obstruction thought expirement, to show my reasoning that the movement of U, the object posited by the authors, must be related directly to the movement of V. But in a more continuous, direct way than a jet chasing a flying saucer. If a correlation can be shown (remember, TheCholla denies a direct correlation), then it probably isn't a real object. The problem is if this can be demonstrated, while ignoring T's movement altogether.


 
Last edited:
At about 45:08 into Mick's video, the author Marik von Rennenkampf asks Mick what he thinks the "fleet" was and when Mick says I don't know, the author says Mick "has to account for it."
Well, that isn't necessarily true. The account of the 'fleet' is purely a verbal recollection, and may be inaccurate in ways that can't be defined with any certainty. So until we get better information on the 'fleet' we can't really say anything much about it.
 
(Mendel, I can't figure out how you are responding directly to specific points, if you wouldn't mind letting me know? For now, I will copy and paste.)
Method 1: highlight a section of text in someone else's post, wait for the word "reply" to pop up next to it, and click/tap it. This will add that section to your ongoing reply, formatted as a quote. (It doesn't always work.)

Method 2: reply to the whole post to quote it, delete what you don't want, and press "Enter" to create a break in the quote for your response.

[snip]
 
Last edited:
But how might we demonstrate mathematically, that U's movement is dependant upon V's movement, while ignoring T altogether?
We can't.

Parallax happens when you look at a distant point, and the observer moves. (I used the example of a "jumping" mountain in a previous post.) But if the data allowed an ummoving point, @Edward Current would have found it.

But what we have is the straight-line T path, which we know is unrelated to the V path, because they have nothing in common. And Edward has demonstrated mathematically that the U-path is what you get when you look at the T-path, but get the distance wrong, which is the exact condition for parallax error. We already know mathematically that the U-path is the T-path plus V-observer parallax, because we know that they look the same to the observer V.

So the proof that the U-path contains a large amount of parallax is already there, the authors simply refuse to acknowledge it.

----

Mick's graphs make my other point much better than I could. It looks to me like you've understood everything else that you're writing about the same way I understand it.
 
Last edited:
We can't.
Thank you, Mendel, your explanation makes sense to me now. I'm taking it that the commonality of U and V is mathematically demonstrable, only in the context of T, which is what TheCholla seemed to be saying to me (although TheCholla disputes T as a plausible flight path, a topic for another day). Not the answer I expected, but I am glad I got such a quick and thorough response.
 
I'm taking it that the commonality of U and V is mathematically demonstrable, only in the context of T,
Well, yes. "commonality" means "the appearance of U is caused by parallax induced by the motion of V", and you need a benchmark by which you can compute the parallax—that'd be T.

You could, with some effort, maybe make a probabilistic case: given V and U, but at random locations in space, how likely is it that a constant-velocity T can be found? I suspect the chances for that may be slim. In other words, the chance that two truly unrelated tracks look like there's parallax when there's not may prove that when this happens, it's unlikely to be a coincidence.

But I don't want to be the one to work it out. :p
 
But I don't want to be the one to work it out. :p
Nor do I, nor could I. I still have a hunch that there is some way to show a "this can't be a coincidence" relationship, with numbers. But I will have to let it be just that, a hunch.

Thanks for the discussion, as well as the reference to Edward Current. These are some of the coolest science explainer videos I have ever seen.
 
Back
Top