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

[TheCholla]

About #2, there is this too.

You have more rotation in the clouds than in the stitch from the real video, because the katana shape (from misaligned horizons) is from forcing the dero, versus decreasing elevation angle.

Link to thread: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/some-refinements-to-the-gimbal-sim.12590/post-360670

I and Zaine have proposed that this is from slight downward camera panning in the original video, which straightens cloud motion angle through the FOV. Could be garbage, but I haven't seen any alternative explanation.

 

[Mick West]

I and Zaine have proposed that this is from slight downward camera panning in the original video, which straightens cloud motion angle through the FOV. Could be garbage, but I haven't seen any alternative explanation.

In order for any explanation of such things to be definitive, you need to know where the clouds are.

The simple way to demonstrate that any theory works is to model it in 3D. I've been on-and-off (mostly off) messing with getting Gimbal working in a more flexible framework in Sitrec to try out such things.

 

[Mauro]

1. Observable #3: the light pattern does not have to be an artifact of the camera. It could be the actual object rotating. The footage itself contains no feature that rules this out in favor of glare

How, how could an external object sense there's been a 'bump' in the optical system which is tracking it, so it can then rotate in synchronism with the bumps? And why should the object want to do that? It's overwhelmingly probable the bumps are causing the rotations. You need an overwhelming evidence against before you can overcome this, and you're very far from that, as I see it.

 

[JMartJr]

It's overwhelmingly probable the bumps are causing the rotations.

Or, I'd think, that they are both caused by a common thing, such as the clutch popping in (or whatever the correct term is in an ATFLIR pod) making a bump and making the camera begin to rotate.

 

[Zaine M.]

You're focusing on one aspect (camera-induced bumps causing the rotation) and treating it as the most probable explanation, while downplaying or ignoring the broader set of anomalies and counter-points to the glare model.

Here are the facts, confirmed in the data and pilot testimony:

• Pilot-reported close-range object (well inside 10 NM)
• No wings
• No visible means of propulsion
• Highly anomalous vertical U-turn with essentially zero turn radius in 120 knots of wind
• Light patterns that are also anomalous — unlike anything seen in other footage
• Downward pan of the camera consistent with the F-18 closing on a close-by target

Given these extraordinary confirmed circumstances, how can you simply rule out that the object itself isn't causing or contributing to the observed rotation and bumps?

 

[Mick West]

Here are the facts, confirmed in the data and pilot testimony:

• Pilot-reported close-range object (well inside 10 NM)
• No wings
• No visible means of propulsion
• Highly anomalous vertical U-turn with essentially zero turn radius in 120 knots of wind
• Light patterns that are also anomalous — unlike anything seen in other footage
• Downward pan of the camera consistent with the F-18 closing on a close-by target

Those are not "facts", they are assertions. Please stop doing that.

 

[Zaine M.]

Those are not "facts", they are assertions. Please stop doing that.

They are in the data.


Source: https://x.com/MvonRen/status/1669133205985714176

 

[Mick West]

No, they are assertions. If they are in the data, then I would agree with you. You are pushing Marik's interpretation, your interpretation, and the perceptions and memories of the pilots, as if they are inviolable representations of reality.