The 'Gimbal' UFO: Marik Claims "New Findings" Falsify Prosaic Explanations

[Mick West]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk_cuDp3pY4


I've not watched it in full, but it seems to be Marik summarizing his old arguments from years ago, and adding in the odd theories from @Zaine M. from https://www.metabunk.org/threads/some-refinements-to-the-gimbal-sim.12590/ (and maybe elsewhere)

 

[Zaine M.]

Mick,
You say you haven't watched Marik's video in full, yet you've already framed the entire thing as just "recycling old arguments" plus "odd theories from Zaine." That's not exactly starting from a position of good faith analysis. The core points aren't old or odd:

• The refined glare model requires an extra roll/derotation mechanism that has never been clearly demonstrated as necessary from the actual video footage.
• That same model fails a direct control test on the Go Fast video from the same flight (straight water path vs the physically correct curved path).
• Full triangulation and cloud motion analysis only closes properly at the close range (<10 NM) reported by the pilots, not at the distant glare range the model needs.

These aren't fringe additions. They're testable issues with the current sim and refinements. Dismissing them without addressing the specifics (especially the Go Fast failure and frustum roll from pitch) doesn't make the prosaic explanation stronger — it just avoids the hard parts.

Happy to discuss any of the actual technical points if you're willing to engage with them.

 

[Mick West]

But they are all thing actively being discussed here, not settled facts.

 

[Zaine M.]

You described my contributions as "odd theories" from the refinements thread, while claiming those points were "actively discussed."

They weren't.

I was the main (often only) person in that thread consistently posting detailed tests: frustum roll from aircraft pitch due to camera mounting, 1:1 bank derotation calculations, stitched cloud motion analysis, elevation tables, and the Go Fast control test from the same flight/same system.

You yourself identified the slight clockwise rotation issue in the first 22 seconds as one of the two main problems needing refinement. That's not an "odd theory" — that's something you highlighted and attempted to fix with tunable extra rotation.

You also replicated the exact "katana shape" with your feature tracking, which further supports the frustum/pitch effect.

If we're going to discuss facts, let's discuss the actual data: the lack of demonstrated need for the extra rotation mechanism, the Go Fast test failure, and why triangulation failed in your recreation.

 

[Mick West]

If we're going to discuss facts, let's discuss the actual data: the lack of demonstrated need for the extra rotation mechanism, the Go Fast test failure, and why triangulation failed in your recreation

I think those are more hypotheses than data. Triangulation, for example, rested on a heap of assumptions and seemed like something AI spat out without really understanding all the variables. Your continued insistence on its validity was, IIRC, what led to you getting suspended for a while. You arguing for something is not you demonstrating that thing. You actually have to get people skilled in the relevant things (i.e. not just Marik) to both understand what you are saying and agree with your conclusion to the extent that they can independently describe and verify them.

A panorama bending is no proof of anything.

 

[John J.]

That's not an "odd theory" — that's something you highlighted and attempted to fix with tunable extra rotation.

I think Mick used "odd" in the sense of "occasional", not "strange".

 

[Mick West]

I think Mick used "odd" in the sense of "occasional", not "strange".

I meant: strange, quirky, incomprehensible. Theories that look halfway reasonable, but are based on unstated complex assumptions. Once those assumptions come out, the theory just seems unsustainable. But it LOOKS good. Triangulation is a good example.

 

[TheCholla]

Theories that look halfway reasonable, but are based on unstated complex assumptions. Once those assumptions come out, the theory just seems unsustainable. But it LOOKS good. Triangulation is a good example.

Or the glare-from-a-distant-plane theory. To me it exactly fits this description you give.

 

[Mick West]

Or the glare-from-a-distant-plane theory. To me it exactly fits this description you give.

There are two theories, and it's a mistake to conflate them.

1) The Glare Theory - which I think is very well demonstrated, and does not rely on the distant plane theory.
2) The Distant Plane Theory - Where there's a set of possible traversals at a certain distance that make good physical sense for being a plane. I think it's demonstrated fairly well that those traversals exist, just not proven that that's the only possible candidate. This does depend on #1

Then there's a separate class of theories,

3) The Nearby Odd Flying Saucer Theory - of which there's a variety of interpretations based on distance and wind.

Other theories, like "a bug on the glass", "Venus", "The Atlas rocket", or "A giant distant flying saucer" exist, but have largely been abandoned as unworkable.

 

[TheCholla]

#3 should be "A nearby object tilting in the wind".

Your biased title makes it sound ridiculous. But it's still the one matching context and the range fouler report, so it has the merit of making less assumptions about the crew and instruments.

#1, "The glare theory", needs a refinement that is textbook what you say below. Unverifiable and not even matching what we expect on the video, if it was true. That's discussed in the other thread.

look halfway reasonable, but are based on unstated complex assumptions. Once those assumptions come out, the theory just seems unsustainable.

 

[Mick West]

#3 should be "A nearby object tilting in the wind".

Your biased title makes it sound ridiculous. But it's still the one matching context and the range fouler report, so it has the merit of making less assumptions about the crew and instruments.

Like a big balloon? Surely that's a subset of a broader "nearby object" theory? In all seriousness, perhaps we need a hierarchical taxonomy of theories? And then a ranked list?

And are you saying that a theory should get a high ranking if it matches what the pilots were reported as saying, even if it means they misunderstood what was on their screens? They, or rather Graves, said it changed direction, like a ping-pong ball - inconsistent with "tilting in the wind"

 

[Zaine M.]

Can you clarify something, Mick?

You say the glare theory is "very well demonstrated."

The theory requires an extra rotation mechanism (beyond normal pod elevation change and tracking).

You've previously acknowledged there is rotation present in the first ~22 seconds that needs explaining.

My question remains the same as it has for months, "What specific part of the actual footage demonstrates that this extra/second rotation mechanism is being used, as opposed to natural pod elevation change?"

This is still unanswered.

As a direct test, I ran both approaches on the Go Fast video from the same flight and same ATFLIR system. The refined formula produced a physically impossible straight water path, while the natural frustum + bank method produced the correct curved path.

What is "very well demonstrated?"

 

[Mick West]

What is "very well demonstrated?"

That the "object" is glare. You've seen my video. There's a huge weight of evidence. A LIZ noisy-data puzzle does not override all of that.

 

[Zaine M.]

There's a huge weight of evidence.

And you have changed your position since that video.

1. Its rotating when it is not meant to be, first 20 seconds, you agree with that.
2. The predictive Gimbal roll simulator, failed to identify the first bump,
3. Observable #3, It does not have to be an artifact of the camera, it could be the actual object rotating,
4. Observable #4 requires the pod to operate differently during the same event, sometimes, allegedly, it snaps back to centre - allowing it to drift again, other time, it does not allow for drift and holds the rotation.

So, please be specific, not "You watched my video", what is well demonstrated?

 

[TheCholla]

They, or rather Graves, said it changed direction, like a ping-pong ball - inconsistent with "tilting in the wind"

Passing under wind speed when going against the wind looks like a ping-pong ball on radar, where ground speed is shown. You're going one direction (against the wind) then suddenly the opposite (with the wind).

You're simply biased in how you interpret context, trying to frame everything as inconsistent.

 

[Mick West]

Passing under wind speed when going against the wind looks like a ping-pong ball on radar, where ground speed is shown. You're going one direction (against the wind) then suddenly the opposite (with the wind).

Did you ever demonstrate this?

 

[Mick West]

So, please be specific, not "You watched my video", what is well demonstrated?

That it's a glare. Your assertions don't invalidate any of it.

Like:

2. The predictive Gimbal roll simulator, failed to identify the first bump,

There is no "predictive roll simulator" that identifies bumps. No bumps are predicted by anything; they are simply observed slightly before rotations. You utterly misunderstand that point and others. This is why you got banned before. Your contributions, while perhaps well-meaning, are not helpful, just distracting dead ends.

 

[TheCholla]

Your sim roll predict bumps though, because it predicts when the pod is supposed to roll in steps. And you say rolling in steps induces bumps. So it in fact it tells us when bumps should happen, or not happen in this case.

You are super harsh with Zaine ("utterly misunderstand", "incomprehensible", "dead end"), but his points are actually valid. Downplaying every contradictory comment as a misunderstanding is getting old.

 

[Mick West]

Your sim roll predict bumps though, because it predicts when the pod is supposed to roll in steps.

No, it does not. There is nothing in the code that predicts bumps or steps. We simply observe those things happening. All it predicts is the curve (which is hard math, constrained by the physical reality of the gimbals, which is maybe why the video is called Gimbal)

You are super harsh with Zaine ("utterly misunderstand", "incomprehensible", "dead end"), but his points are actually valid. Downplaying every contradictory comment as a misunderstanding is getting old.

But I don't think his points are valid. Hence my frustration.

 

[Zaine M.]

Mick, once again you've chosen to respond only to a minor side point while ignoring the central question I've asked multiple times now.

The glare theory, as currently refined, requires an extra rotation mechanism beyond normal pod elevation change and standard tracking.

So I'll ask directly again:

What specific observable in the actual Gimbal footage demonstrates that this extra/second rotation mechanism is being used?

This question remains unanswered. The Go Fast control test (same flight, same crew, same system) also remains unaddressed - where the refined formula produces a physically impossible straight water path.

Dismissing points as "distracting dead ends" or bringing up the ban doesn't answer the question. It just avoids it.

If the theory is truly "very well demonstrated," then pointing to the specific evidence in the video that requires the extra mechanism should be straightforward.

I'll address your point briefly, I wasn't misunderstanding the predictive simulator. Does the "the incredible synchronicity" model actually predict the observed rotation/ bumps consistently? No, it doesn't hold up cleanly. However, that's a side issue.

 

[jackfrostvc]

Was radar jamming ever mentioned by Graves or anyone related to the Gimbal/general event ?

 

[TheCholla]

There is nothing in the code that predicts bumps or steps.

I disagree, you allow for a certain deviation between the ideal roll curve and the "glare" angle (2-3° of internal mirrors compensation). The parameters are set to fit the curve and stay in that deviation interval (2-3°). So your sim is a predictive tool, it tells us when the pod should roll to remain in the range of internal mirrors.

In fact if we had a few more seconds of the footage, we could test the prediction from your model that there is another step happening a few seconds after the cut. When the crew said there was a wobble.

 

[Mick West]

I'll address your point briefly, I wasn't misunderstanding the predictive simulator.

There is no predictive simulator of bumps. Why would it identify any bumps. Bumps are things that we observe happening.

I disagree, you allow for a certain deviation between the ideal roll curve and the "glare" angle (2-3° of internal mirrors compensation). The parameters are set to fit the curve and stay in that deviation interval (2-3°). So your sim is a predictive tool, it tells us when the pod should roll to remain in the range of internal mirrors.

But the code makes no predictions. It does not attempt to stay in a deviation range. That's just what is observed.

There's a minor puzzle as to what is going on at the start. LBF's work seemed to address that. Other methods might too. But it does not really change anything about the glare being a glare. If you think it's significant, then try to convince someone who is not anonymous that it's significant.

So I'll ask directly again:

See previous sentence. Stop asking. It's the same answer.

 

[TheCholla]

Under the assumption that the pod rolls when deviation gets >2°, or something like that (2-3°), it predicts when the step rolls should happen.

Unless you consider the step rolls are random and can happen with different deviations from center, but in that case no need to build a model, just say "it has to be the pod, this is what we observe, so this is what the pod did". But this has zero demonstrative value

 

[Zaine M.]

There is no predictive simulator of bumps.

16 minutes, 57 seconds
which means the pod needs to rotate more in the counterclockwise direction so we get this long correction until the jet stops banking
17:05
17 minutes, 5 seconds
then there's one more correction like the others and finally we end just before another correction would be needed

 

[Zaine M.]

Enough with the side quests.

Fact: In your own video you said "...and finally we end just before another correction would be needed."

Fact: You also explicitly referred to "bumps before rotation" as one of the observables, and they are intrinsically linked to the corrections. These bumps are directly tied to the corrections you described.

Yet when Cholla and I point out these same bumps and deviations from the predicted smooth curve, they are dismissed as "it's not a predictive simulator..."

You said: "There's a minor puzzle as to what is going on at the start. LBF's work seemed to address that."

You are actually acknowledging that the footage does not behave like simple glare.

You continue to refuse to address the Go Fast control test from the same flight and same ATFLIR system - where the refined formula produces a physically impossible straight water path. And you keep dodging the central question as "its LBFs issue".

Directing me not to ask again and calling it a "distracting dead end" is simply an evasion.

 

[Harabeck]

Fact: In your own video you said "...and finally we end just before another correction would be needed."

That's a prediction by Mick based on an understanding of why the bumps occur, not a prediction built into the code. So why is this a salient point? You seem to be conflating our total understanding of the system with what is actually implemented in the stabilization code.

Fact: You also explicitly referred to "bumps before rotation" as one of the observables, and they are intrinsically linked to the corrections. These bumps are directly tied to the corrections you described.

Yet when Cholla and I point out these same bumps and deviations from the predicted smooth curve, they are dismissed as "it's not a predictive simulator..."

If the bumps are indeed the result of an implementation detail of the hardware as it tries to track, then the deviation they represent does not support your argument that the object must actually be rotating. And the bumps occur first, so how could it be anything other than sourced from the hardware? Why would the target rotating a split second in the future cause a bump of the hardware before it occurs?

You said: "There's a minor puzzle as to what is going on at the start. LBF's work seemed to address that."

You are actually acknowledging that the footage does not behave like simple glare.

Acknowledging an unknown is quite reasonable in this case. We don't additional have data or full context. Your statements that the rotation at the beginning is evidence against a glare are bare assertions. There could be any number of reasons, and the behavior is not such that it must contradict a glare.

Showing that a glare is the most likely explanation does not require that every tiny aspect of the situation be perfectly modeled and explained down the nth degree. Indeed, that is an impossible task. I don't see true contradictions to the glare hypothesis in your arguments. I see anomaly hunting.

 

[TheCholla]

That's a prediction by Mick based on an understanding of why the bumps occur, not a prediction built into the code. So why is this a salient point?

Most models don't produce predictions as an output, but are used to make predictions (for instance, a weather model).

Mick's model must provide predictive information to have any value, like any other models. As Zaine points it, Mick himself uses it as a prediction tool in his explanatory video, to predict another step roll after the cut. It's a model, models are meant to simulate hence predict behavior. It's just gaslighting trying to attack Zaine on his use of the word "predictive".

 

[Mick West]

It's just gaslighting trying to attack Zaine on his use of the word "predictive".

He claimed it failed to predict a bump. I see nothing in the model to support that. It's a meaningless assertion.

 

[TheCholla]

There is a bump at the beginning of the video that's not associated with any pod roll as predicted in your pod roll sim (based on deviation from center, i.e. ideal roll curve). Should not be controversial, we all noticed it a while ago. You could simply say: "it's a bump from another origin than roll", rather than gaslighting on Zaine not understanding what the model does.

 

[Mick West]

There is a bump at the beginning of the video that's not associated with any pod roll as predicted in your pod roll sim (based on deviation from center, i.e. ideal roll curve). Should not be controversial, we all noticed it a while ago. You could simply say: "it's a bump from another origin than roll", rather than gaslighting on Zaine not understanding what the model does.

2. The predictive Gimbal roll simulator, failed to identify the first bump,

Why would it? There's nothing in there that predict bumps. Nothing prevents bumps from other sources. The implemented model predicts what the glare angle should be. The extents are not in the implemented model, and they don't require bumps.

Zaine seem to be presenting an early bump as something that should have been predicted. This bump in no way invalidates anything. There are lots of bumps in ATFLIR footage. Just look at FLIR1. The glaring evidence here is the close correlation of a bump slightly before rotations.

 

[TheCholla]

Taking your pod roll sim with the default settings (should be the best fit), and evaluating the claim of "incredible synchronicity", we get this:

Green arrows are when the model accurately predicts a step roll based on the line of sight deviating from about 2°.
Red circles is when the model predicts that a step roll should happen (based on the 2° deviation threshold), but it does not in the video.
It's a 50% accuracy. Again, long time since it was pointed out.

And yes the first bump is not accounted for, could be turbulence or something else, but it shows that bumps in the image can happen independently of pod roll.

Also we indeed see that your model predicts another step roll happening soon after the cut, as the deviation from center climbs towards 2° again. Having these few seconds would be the best way to test your theory.

Why the claim that the glare theory is "very-well demonstrated" is subjective. It looks good, seems halfway reasonable, but is not incredibly compelling for many reasons, one pointed out by Zaine being that it needs a refinement that has not been demonstrated (what you ask from others).

 

[JMartJr]

And yes the first bump is not accounted for, could be turbulence or something else, but it shows that bumps in the image can happen independently of pod roll.

But it is worth noting that they ALWAYS precede a rotation of the glare. Other things may cause a bump, sure. But something to do with the rotation is causing bumps consistently.

Anybody that wants to posit a mechanism by which the rotation supposedly happening out at the target can cause a bump just before it rotates, every time, I'm listening.

But it seems WAY more reasonable to assume that the bump before each rotation is caused at the airplane end of things, with a little bump that is part of the "start up"or engagement of the camera rotation mechanism.

 

[Mick West]

Taking your pod roll sim with the default settings (should be the best fit), and evaluating the claim of "incredible synchronicity", we get this:

The current Gimbal sim is in something of an experimental state, before I lost interest. The original one (that I reference in my video) is here:

https://www.metabunk.org/gimbal1/

No problem there, but it leaves the initial observed rotation unexplained. I know this is an outstanding issue, but I think the close correlation to the curve, and the very obvious other observables, demonstrate that it's glare.

 

[Ravi]

But it is worth noting that they ALWAYS precede a rotation of the glare. Other things may cause a bump, sure. But something to do with the rotation is causing bumps consistently.

Anybody that wants to posit a mechanism by which the rotation supposedly happening out at the target can cause a bump just before it rotates, every time, I'm listening.

But it seems WAY more reasonable to assume that the bump before each rotation is caused at the airplane end of things, with a little bump that is part of the "start up"or engagement of the camera rotation mechanism.

Agree. And the example footage that Marik is showing of pod rotations being very smoothly are all happening very fast (plane/target's angles changing very fast). I think that influences the "smoothness" of the gimbal & mirror systems of the pod. Meaning, if something happens slowly (the glare object/ufo), the system might have trouble in making the corrections smooth. Also, let't not forget it happens around the gimbal's "dead zone"

 

[Mick West]

Directing me not to ask again and calling it a "distracting dead end" is simply an evasion.

The problem here is that each time I dig into your theories (like the triangulation issue), it takes a lot of time, and the end result is that there's some assumption you made that makes the entire thing meaningless (IIRC with triangulation it was ignoring some unquantifiable rotation or position shift). So over the years, I've become increasingly disinclined to investigate your claims.

I'm sorry that I don't think they are worth addressing. But I'm simply setting a bar for your claims: someone else should be able to understand and explain them before I waste many hours (which I could be getting paid for doing actual work) investigating them. Essentially, I'm asking for minimal peer review of the form we have here (discussions by people who understand the problem). I invited you here, thinking you'd be able to explain your theories and have productive discussions. Instead, I see you demanding answers to questions I've answered many times before, as Marik does. This is not useful.

To be clear, my answers are not satisfactory to anyone because I'm saying I don't think this initial rotation or the "katana" panorama are showstoppers. They are puzzles that have not been resolved. That's all. Presenting them, as Marik does, as cast-iron refutations of the glare theory is simply a rhetorical device, and not part of a good-faith investigation.

And being anonymous isn't really helping either. I would very much prefer a focused, collaborative, and public investigation of what the videos show, by real people who will stand by their work. I know people have their reasons, (i've been anonymous in the distant past), but I wish people would just use their real names.