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.

 

[John J.]

No visible means of propulsion

Glare from an IR source would be an optical indication of the means of propulsion.

Highly anomalous vertical U-turn

"Vertical U-turn" implies a 180 degree (or thereabouts) change in direction of flight in the vertical plane; I don't think we see this.
It's hard to see the feature making much vertical movement relative to the cloud tops. The F/A-18 maintains a steady altitude, the ATFLIR remains aligned 2 degrees below the aircraft axis.

A conventional aircraft changing altitude -descending and then ascending, or vice-versa- might be perceived on a 2D screen as a U-turn in the vertical plane, if the viewer was unaware that the aircraft's position in the horizontal plane was also changing (i.e. that it was changing altitude as it progressed along its flightpath).

 

[Mendel]

@Mick West , please spend your time refining your model, not arguing in circles.

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.

It's not an "explanation". The bumps are proof that the observed fast rotations originate with the camera system and not with the external world.
Once the rotation is accounted for, all the GIMBAL video shows is a distant IR target with glare and diffraction spikes.

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

• Pilot-reported close-range object (well inside 10 NM)

no. there is no evidence linking radar target hearsay and the IR target in the video.

• No wings

these wouldn't be visible even at 10 nm.

• No visible means of propulsion

do you not see the IR signature of the jet exhausts? What about that is not visible? Why should we still take you seriously?

• Highly anomalous vertical U-turn with essentially zero turn radius in 120 knots of wind

this only comes out if you asume 10 nm. If you assume 30 nm, you get a straight constant-velocity flight path at airliner cruise speed. The U-turn is a parallax effect resulting from the curve the observer jet is flying if you misjudge the distance. You know this, why don't you mention it?

• Light patterns that are also anomalous — unlike anything seen in other footage

I do not understand this point. What light? Ate you saying the IR shape on the screen is uncommon?

• Downward pan of the camera consistent with the F-18 closing on a close-by target

you still haven't published a complete proof of that? I don't think we have conclusive evidence of that at all.

 

[TheCholla]

The discussion always drifts to the bumps and light patterns, that are ultimate proof that Gimbal is a glare, based on... Gimbal itself. No other footage to validate. Just a sense that it can only be the pod rolling.

However this thread is about Marik's video, its main point being that cloud motion angle is unexplained, and not reproduced in the 3-D recreations. A proposed explanation is that it's due to slight downward panning of the camera. If that thread is meant to debunk that explanation, what's the best argument against it? May be more interesting than going into the same stuff that's been discussed a million times.

 

[TheCholla]

@Mick West , please spend your time refining your model, not arguing in circles.

Looking at the original post, what's the intent with this thread? Debunk Marik's video, go into circles on the glare observables (and unobservables), encourage new analyses...? Unclear to me.