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? Are 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]

How, how could an external object sense there's been a 'bump' in the optical system which is tracking it

That's absurd, but independently of Gimbal, fine-tracking an object to microradians, super-zoomed, may be prone to a slight disruption in the image (bump) if there is a change in attitude (acceleration, deceleration, extended IR signature with afterburners..) of say object. There is at least one example (afterburner).

Why people have looked frame by frame at the bumps in Gimbal, with different interpretations.

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.

 

[jackfrostvc]

Ive heard this vertical U-Turn being mentioned a number of times. But I'm still not sure what is trying to be said here.


Is the U-Turn theory suggesting the object turned back vertically and then started coming towards the following Jet?
If so, why don't we see the object getting bigger as it is now then approaching the jet?

I'm sure I'm misinterpreting something here

 

[Mendel]

Ive heard this vertical U-Turn being mentioned a number of times. But I'm still not sure what is trying to be said here.


Is the U-Turn theory suggesting the object turned back vertically and then started coming towards the following Jet?
If so, why don't we see the object getting bigger as it is now then approaching the jet?

I'm sure I'm misinterpreting something here

It's also been called a "J-hook".
See e.g. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/peings-and-von-rennenkampff-reconstruction-of-potential-flight-paths-for-the-january-2015-"gimbal"-uap.12990/ for details.
It's a solution for the target's flight path if you assume a distance of 10 nm, instead of the 30 nm that yield a "straight and level flight at constant speed" flight path that @Edward Current computed in https://www.metabunk.org/threads/gimbal-blender-simulation-with-clouds.12209/ , and defends in https://www.metabunk.org/threads/which-gimbal-scenario-is-more-likely-—-30-nm-or-10-nm.12344/ .

We have a boatload of threads where they're arguing about Mick's explanation.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mick-vs-marik-rotation-glare-gimbal.13739/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/gimbal-glare-rotation-clouds-and-angles.14625/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/gimbal-3d-analysis.12303/

It's really all a hamster wheel right now.

 

[Harabeck]

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.

Mick did simple experiments to show that optical elements can cause a glare to rotate, example:


Youtube user GoddardsJournal located some flir footage with rotating glares and shows them in this video:


Which reminds me...

• No visible means of propulsion

This video contains a great example of distant targets with "no visible means of propulsion" at about 2:26. The zoomed in view shows they are clearly jets.

 

[TheCholla]

By the way, user Goddards edited the example FLIR footage to invert colors and increase contrast. The original video does not look like this.
That stuff is old, and nothing compares to Gimbal for an aircraft at that distance. I'm talking about a big oval rotating glare, spreading well beyond the source (if a jet at 30Nm). The closest Mick got, is the sun through a ziploc bag in a low-grade FLIR camera. Folks who have followed the debate on X know this.

The bumps, same, as far as I know no comparable example out there, or some that are independent of camera roll. Feel free to share if you have some.

That's fine, but it's a fact that the chain of events for the Gimbal glare/plane theory relies mostly on Gimbal itself.

Ive heard this vertical U-Turn being mentioned a number of times. But I'm still not sure what is trying to be said here.


Is the U-Turn theory suggesting the object turned back vertically and then started coming towards the following Jet?
If so, why don't we see the object getting bigger as it is now then approaching the jet?

From the "some refinement to the Gimbal sim" thread:

I don't see what's so extraordinary about the claims. Stop/reverse on a dime on radar (ground track), is actually a turn (probably with altitude change here) in air track. The claim that they saw this on radar is not extraordinary given high-wind and how air track can differ from ground track.
See blue line below (air track) versus ground track in green (what was seen on radar).

Now, what object is behind the IR signature, that's intriguing. But to completely discard it because it's too extraordinary, I find it subjective.

Cyan is the F-18. For the object, U-turn is on radar (ground track, green curve), with high wind and a slow mover it's actually just a turn (air track, blue curve).

And about the vertical aspect of it (a turn with slight gain in altitude in the air track), a slight rise of the object in the FOV can be measured when the object turns in that scenario.

It has been retrieved by myself, Zaine's stitching, and it is also visible in Mick's automatized stitching:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/gimbal-glare-rotation-clouds-and-angles.14625/post-360664

Could be a turbulence affecting the distant jet exactly at that moment, or you know the object is where it was on radar (much closer).

 

[Mick West]

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.

To discuss his claims. Which I'd be doing more of if I had the time and inclination. It's just a way of focussing the discussion instead of appending it to a much longer and older thread.

 

[TheCholla]

Original "Goddards footage" :

Source: https://youtu.be/YyefSnLxjXk?si=g1liigDYtJta0FR8&t=791

 

[John J.]

Original "Goddards footage" : [VFA 31 TOMCATTERS 2017 OIR Cruise Video]

Which parts of this video are you saying feature in Ian Goddard's video?

The only IR-filmed aircraft that I can identify in the "VFA 31 TOMCATTERS 2017 OIR Cruise Video" are:

6 mins 12 secs, a Su-17 or Su-22
12 mins 30 secs, 2 (probable) F/A-18s with a (probable) KC-135 Stratotanker (not the same aircraft as in the following daylight footage, which includes a KC-10 Extender)
12 mins 42 secs, an MQ-9 Reaper UAV (unsure if this is IR or low light imagery)
12 mins 53 secs, something with twin tail booms, similar configuration to an OV-10 Bronco but with slenderer proportions and lacking the engines pods protruding in front of the wings, perhaps a UAV with a pusher prop.
A number of nations use drones with this configuration, from cheap target drones to higher end recce/ attack platforms (e.g. China's TYW-1).
13 mins 04 secs, a Su-27 derivative with canards (maybe a Su-30 or 33)
13 mins 12 secs, a Su-27 or derivative, possibly without canards
13 mins 32 secs, another Su-27 or related aircraft without canards

None of this footage appears to be directly related to any footage in Goddard's "NY Times UFO Debunked?" video (in post #55), unless I've missed something (I might have- but most of the examples in the Goddard video are not derived from the "Tomcatters" video as far as I can make out). Ditto the ground attack footage.

What is the basis for your claim?

No-one here is saying there isn't lots of relatively clear ATFLIR footage not exhibiting glare; posting examples of such footage doesn't mean glare effects never occur or that ATFLIR imagery is always unambiguous (or interpreted correctly).

 

[Harabeck]

By the way, user Goddards edited the example FLIR footage to invert colors and increase contrast. The original video does not look like this.

Why is that relevant? The color mode is arbitrary, so inverting it to match the GIMBAL footage changes nothing important. The original video you link clearly shows the rotating diffraction spikes, so I don't see how any claims of altering the contrast are material either.

Also, he had a second example in that video.

That stuff is old, and nothing compares to Gimbal for an aircraft at that distance. I'm talking about a big oval rotating glare, spreading well beyond the source (if a jet at 30Nm).

The third video I posted shows this clearly. So that's one example where the shape of the aircraft is obscured, and multiple that show the rotation.

Are you claiming that something about these observed phenomena precludes them from occurring together?

As for it being "old", yeah... it is. You claimed that the GIMBAL footage is unique, therefore it can't be a glare. But we have small scale experiments and footage that demonstrate the elements we point to when we say it's a glare. So why try to claim otherwise if you were aware of this footage?

 

[TheCholla]

Which parts of this video are you saying feature in Ian Goddard's video?

It's at 13'15, I thought I had linked to the timestamp. The video starts at it on my end.

 

[Zaine M.]

The recent posts are still focused on explaining the rotation as glare-related, I do appreciate you bringing that forward because the claim from the video is, it isn't behaving like glare.

This is exactly why Mick previously called the early rotation a "puzzle."

There's a minor puzzle as to what is going on at the start.

The video clearly demonstrates decoupling between the horizon and the object's independent rotation.

This decoupling cannot be explained by simple distant glare + standard pod derotation.

Additionally, the distant plane recreation is flawed. Matching the clouds is the only way to derive the distant plane's path, and when applying the correct bank and speed, it does not produce a straight or even slightly wavy flight path, it is completely impossible.

If the basic glare explanation cannot account for the observed decoupling without ad-hoc additions, then focusing on "glare rotating" misses the point.

Please watch the full video and then reply.

 

[TheCholla]

As for it being "old", yeah... it is. You claimed that the GIMBAL footage is unique, therefore it can't be a glare. But we have small scale experiments and footage that demonstrate the elements we point to when we say it's a glare. So why try to claim otherwise if you were aware of this footage?

If you read what I've posted before, I'm not even saying "it can't be glare". I'm saying, and this is my opinion, there is way too easy dismissal of the problems and uncertainties with the glare/plane hypothesis, and disregard for alternative scenarios.

As far as the Goddards FLIR footage, if you think it looks like Gimbal, well that's your opinion. Yes there are rotating diffraction spikes, like in other footage, but that's pretty much all. Gimbal is a rotating blob, the only rotating blob I've seen in IR is the sun through the ziploc bag.

 

[John J.]

Original "Goddards footage" :

Which parts of this video are you saying feature in Ian Goddard's video?

It's at 13'15, I thought I had linked to the timestamp.

This is the Su-27 (or derivative) that appears from approx.13 mins 12 secs. Imaging switches from dark=hot to light=hot.

It emphatically does not appear in Goddard's video.

What makes you claim that this is "Original "Goddard's footage"? It doesn't feature in Goddard's video at all.

 

[TheCholla]

The white hot section from "VFA 31 TOMCATTERS 2017 OIR Cruise Video", 13,15, is in Goddard's debunk video, with inverted colors.

 

[Harabeck]

The video clearly demonstrates decoupling between the horizon and the object's independent rotation.

In the same way that the diffraction spikes at 1:34 in this video are "decoupled" from the rotation in the rest of the frame, though this example is more pronounced.

I'm saying, and this is my opinion, there is way too easy dismissal of the problems and uncertainties with the glare/plane hypothesis, and disregard for alternative scenarios.

The uncertainties are acknowledged constantly, and the alternate scenarios require exotic phenomena or technologies which we have no reason to invoke based on available evidence.

As far as the Goddards FLIR footage, if you think it looks like Gimbal, well that's your opinion. Yes there are rotating diffraction spikes, like in other footage, but that's pretty much all. Gimbal is a rotating blob, the only rotating blob I've seen in IR is the sun through the ziploc bag.

And if the FLIR pod had been poorly maintained and there were flaws in its optical systems? The same could happen there, right? So is the argument against glare that FLIR pods are always operating perfectly?

 

[TheCholla]

Almost anything can happen when you have limited data. It's a matter of what makes the most sense based on the evidence. Some people propose alternative hypotheses to Mick's glare/plane, and this forum cannot accept it. Mick started this thread, not Marik, me or Zaine.
Maybe you can live with the fact that people may do their own research and have a different interpretation. People have reasonable reasons to doubt the distant plane hypothesis, it's a weak debunk. And no the close path is not necessarily exotic, that's your own bias making you conclude that. It's anomalous but not exotic. There isn't enough precision in the data (elevation angle in particular) for concluding that.

 

[Zaine M.]

In the same way that the diffraction spikes at 1:34 in this video are "decoupled" from the rotation in the rest of the frame, though this example is more pronounced.

1/ You are making the case for the downward pan, indicating the F-18 is closing in on a close by target. (Noting Mick independently got the same result as I did)
2/ That video shows smooth continuous rotation, NOT stepped rotation (Again, you are making our case)
3/ You are however missing the point, when the camera is alleged to NOT be rotating, "There's no rotation in the first 20 seconds because the pod is avoiding using roll" - Gimbal A new Analysis, the object is rotating, "Its decoupled".

There's a minor puzzle as to what is going on at the start.

 

[Mick West]

1/ You are making the case for the downward pan, indicating the F-18 is closing in on a close by target. (Noting Mick independently got the same result as I did)

That's overstating. I got a similar curve in a panorama, the cause of which is undetermined.

Please stop paraphrasing, or you will be banned. Use quotes.

 

[JMartJr]

I'm saying, and this is my opinion, there is way too easy dismissal of the problems and uncertainties with the glare/plane hypothesis, and disregard for alternative scenarios.

Such as...? Not trying to be a wise guy, I'm curious what other scenario(s) you think are plausible, other than the shape being glare from a hot object.

 

[TheCholla]

Such as...? Not trying to be a wise guy, I'm curious what other scenario(s) you think are plausible, other than the shape being glare from a hot object

Shape being a diffuse blob from a hot (relative to background, we don't know how hot it is) AND relatively close object. With a doubt on the rotation being from the pod. I thought a rocket booster (Atlas hypothesis) may have been a good candidate, with initial inertia against the wind, then taken by the wind. But the dates don't match given the reported wind, and also it does not seem it's losing altitude (to the contrary). So I don't know.

 

[John J.]

The white hot section from "VFA 31 TOMCATTERS 2017 OIR Cruise Video", 13,15, is in Goddard's debunk video, with inverted colors.

Ah, my mistake, I was watching the third video in post #55, not the second. You're right, the Su-27 does feature in Goddard's video (the second in #55).