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

[jarlrmai]

Here's a 10 page thread where we considered an ATLAS launch
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/could-the-gimbal-video-show-an-atlas-v-launch.12078/

Such movement (the 'J-HOOK' that mirrors the jet movement accounting for parallax) is essentially magic given our current understanding of physics, not just some DARPA level iteration on known aircraft performance.

So saying not aliens, but DARPA just assumes DARPA are capable of magic.

 

[Mendel]

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

Since we have no authoritative knowledge of how ATFLIR derotation works, that's an unfounded statement.

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.

You have not supported this 'impossible' to the level that @Edward Current has shown it to be possible.

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

No, the focusing on the first part of the video misses the point that the anomalous feature of it are the strong quick rotations, which have been shown to be a camera artifact for various reasons.

At this point, we are assuming that the discrepancies you notice near the beginning can be addressed by refining the software model of the pod, but it doesn't seem worth the time to actually do.

 

[TheCholla]

@jarlrmai What's magic about that blue curve here?
You seem to overlook what the close paths can be, and the part of uncertainty/artifacts in the recreations due to imprecise data (like forcing constant elevation angle).

 

[Mick West]

That doesn't fit a balloon.
But more generally, a bunch of objects with initial speed, that are progressively undertaken by the wind (fits close path, the fleet, unusual tracks on SA).

Say rocket boosters with parachutes, super hot, drifting in the wind after release, they could have looked like this no? Both in IR signature and radar tracks (?). Apart from the fact that they'd descend and the data doesn't point to that (the date/wind neither).

My apologies for misunderstanding. I'm not really sure what you are envisaging, though.

 

[Harabeck]

I understand that a debunker, by design, needs an explanation for every case (#1 in the list of potential explanations). Personally I can live with a bin of unexplained events (unexplained doesn't mean non prosaic). Maybe in the long term they may mean something, and dismissing them with half-baked debunks may lead to miss a pattern. Maybe they mean nothing. Why Gimbal, FLIR1, I say "I don't know", I'm fine with that.

Not having an explanation is fine. Making poor arguments about a proposed explanation will get pushback though.

 

[TheCholla]

Making poor arguments about a proposed explanation will get pushback though.

Yes and that applies to that thread and the rebuttal of Marik's video. Haven't seen much in terms of argument against some of the relatively new things he discusses.

For example the slight rise of the object above the clouds at the end, found in the stitched panoramas. Or cloud angle motion and the resulting katana shape in the stitches (which may result from slight downward panning of the camera, as proposed).

 

[Mendel]

For example the slight rise of the object above the clouds at the end, found in the stitched panoramas. Or cloud angle motion and the resulting katana shape in the stitches (which may result from slight downward panning of the camera, as proposed).

Can't be discussed because the stitching algorithm is not transparent, and the imputed meaning of its output is not supported in any way.

I could say it's a quirk of the stitching algorithm because there is detail in the bottom half of the frames and no detail in the top half, plus camera distortion, and you couldn't disprove it because the analysis is so shallow that it doesn't go beyond 'argument at incredulity': "I can't believe the stitching output would be curved, therefore all my pre-conceived theories are confirmed."

And it's not "relatively new". We discussed it 5 months ago, here's a post on page 2 of a 13-page thread: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/some-refinements-to-the-gimbal-sim.12590/post-358783
so excuse us when we don't think there's anything new to be said about it that would make it worth discussing again with the same people, no less. It's gonna be a circular waste of time.

 

[TheCholla]

@Mendel Then don't discuss it!

 

[Zaine M.]

@Mendel your posts in this thread repeat the same pattern:

You dismiss the demonstrated facts as "circular" or "not established," and insist the distant-glare explanation remains intact despite direct control-test failures and geometry mismatches.

Here are the key demonstrated facts you keep sidestepping (from the refinements thread + Go-Fast control test + independent stitching).

Strongly NOTE. This post in no way shape or form is to be construed as Mick agreeing with ANYTHING I am saying. I am NOT attempting to paraphrase him, nor put words in his mouth. Mick did a number of tests, reproducing at least what can be called similar results, NOT conclusions.

• LBFs horizon formula: It is explicitly based on an assumption of "what a pilot would likely see" according to LBF. It is an imagined, idealized pilot-view model, not an empirical measurement of the actual sensor.
  
  
• What demonstrates the additional pod roll: When directly asked what in the actual Gimbal footage demonstrates that LBFs derotation mechanism is physically present and operating, "What in the footage demonstrates this". Mick told me to stop asking the question. No answer can be given because the entire correction is built on LogicBear's imagined "what a pilot would likely see" formula - not on any observable, measurable behaviour in the video, pod telemetry.
  
  
• Circular use of the formula: LBFs formula is used to "correct"/derotate the clouds and horizon to make the distant-glare model fit, and then the resulting "good fit" is cited as proof that the formula (and therefore the distant model) is correct. This is using the formula to validate the formula - classic circular reasoning.
  
  
• Go-Fast control test (same flight, same system): Using the frustum + natural bank method reproduces the observed curved water path and downward pan exactly. "The formula" produces an impossible straight-line ground track, Micks result found this also. This falsifies the assumption that the camera behaves the same way for a distant target.
  
  
• Metallic-sphere example (Bellingcat stitch): Shows both the downward pan and the non-linear ground path expected, curved ground path, as demonstrated in the Go-Fast example.
  
  
• Mick's own results show the same downward motion: Mick reproduced the prominent downward motion - the exact behavior that appears in both the Go-Fast control test and the Bellingcat metallic-sphere stitch (nearby target), my 3D recreation of the reaper being over taken. This downward pan is a key signature of closing range on a nearby object, not a distant one. Its presence in Mick's run further supports the close-trajectory geometry and directly contradicts the idea that the camera motion is fully explained by a distant glare under pure pod-roll.
  
  
• Cloud triangulation + lines of bearing: Do not resolve the clouds at the distant ranges required by Sitrec. Mick's Sitrec demonstrating a distant plane is possible, truncates the line-of-sight spread by ~20 % and fails to triangulate. When Mick switched to the real values (bank/ speed) he obtained results consistent with mine and there is only an impossible distant plane path.
  
  
• Rapid range closure I demonstrated from, Line of Sight intersect points ~12 NM down to ~8 NM, then steep decrease after the reversal point. This matches the pilots' reports of a close, manoeuvring object.
  
  
• Reversal-point pivot analysis: Using that point as the pivot shows the exact range closure the pilots described. The close trajectory is in the data.
  
  
• Decoupled rotation (first ~20–22 s): Mick himself called this a "puzzle." It is not explained by pod roll or the refined derotation model; the object rotates independently of the horizon/clouds/camera motion.

These are not "theories." They are reproducible tests run on the actual video, the actual flight parameters, and the same sensor as Go-Fast.

Repeating "refine the model" while ignoring the control-test failure and the geometry mismatch is not engagement - it's avoidance.

The data shows range closure, independent rotation, and camera behaviour consistent with a real (not glare) nearby target.

[edited for caveat, format.]