Was Gimbal a drug plane?

Edward Current

Active Member
I haven't heard this conjecture before. My 3D model suggests that Gimbal was a jet going ~375 knots at ~19,000 feet, and we know it was somewhere over the Atlantic off Florida. People always ask why, if it was a jet, it wasn't identified as one.

Do we know for a fact that there was no transponder signal from the Gimbal object? Because, not surprisingly, drug-plane pilots do not abide by normal transponder procedures:
Interdiction agencies may, for example, decide that an aircraft is suspicious if it does not respond (using a radio receiving/transmitting device known as a transponder) to a query from a device attached to the radar surveillance equipment or if the aircraft responds with an improper transmission code (these codes help identify an aircraft). Interdiction agencies may also consider an aircraft suspicious if its flight pattern is out of the ordinary or matches that typically used by smugglers (for example, night flights in the Bahamas without a flight plan)...Radar systems are also used to identify smuggling aircraft that are covertly equipped with a transponder. This method of detection, however, has become less effective, partly because smugglers have acquired electronic devices that can identify covert transponders in their aircraft.
Content from External Source
(From https://www.gao.gov/assets/ggd-89-93.pdf)

The region from Venezuela to Georgia is involved in drug trafficking by plane:
Working with the most famous Colombian trafficker, Pablo Escobar, Lehder opened air routes to the Bahamas. He even bought an island, where he held orgies while one plane after another stopped for refueling before unloading cocaine at airports in Florida and Georgia...Air corridors have shifted dramatically since the '80s. In the never-ending game of whack-a-mole that is the drug war, a lockdown of Colombian airspace beginning in the early '00s led air pirates to decamp to neighboring Venezuela, where they've thrived..."Venezuela is the source of literally hundreds of flights every year," says Bruce Bagley, a drug-trade expert at University of Miami. "It's very hard to find who's behind all of this, where they're going. They fly low," eluding radar, he says.
Content from External Source
(From https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/...lorida-new-times-investigation-finds-10249767)

While smaller operators use ultralights and Cessnas, Gulfstream and Hawker business jets and Beechcraft Super King Airs are popular with larger operations:
6 of the narco-plane incidents analysed involved were Gulfstreams, mostly the older Gulfstream II type. In the 1960s these were the first large, long-range business jets on the market. They can carry 14 or more passengers for around 4,000 miles, making them ideal smuggling aircraft. The narcos have proven that they can be flown from relatively austere, clandestine airstrips.
Content from External Source
(From https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutt...-common-with-narco-smugglers/?sh=75d8d9896fc5)

Weak security is generally a problem at smaller airports:
Robert Carlson, a California businessman who dreamed of becoming the cocaine king of the skies, used private jets to funnel a billion dollars' worth of cartel drugs through smaller airports across the country — exploiting a security blind spot. He did it over and over again, profiting off a rarely policed mode of transportation. And when he was finally busted in 2017 in Lexington, it wasn't because of the X-ray scanner or drug-sniffing dog. That level of security at private and secondary airports just isn't there. Instead, an informant tipped off federal agents and blew up one of the nation's largest airborne domestic smuggling rings — one in which Carlson moved drugs for three years for the Sinaloa Cartel. A closer look at Carlson's case — provided through federal court transcripts and interviews with prosecutors and agents — exposes gaping holes in security at the majority of the nation's more than 2,500 general aviation airports, where there are no Transportation Security Administration checkpoints.
Content from External Source
(From https://www.courier-journal.com/sto...icked-cocaine-meth-sinaloa-cartel/3323172001/)

I thought I would mention this conjecture in my upcoming video on Gimbal. Wondering what y’all think.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Wondering what y’all think.
i think it's fine to offer brief speculations, but i wouldn't dwell on it. I would definitely highlight the question
Do we know for a fact that there was no transponder signal from the Gimbal object?

because i'm thinking of the Chilean ufo, where a government team of impressive sounding experts were looking in the wrong place and were unable to identify the plane..
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ex...deo-aerodynamic-contrails-flight-ib6830.8306/
 

dimebag2

Active Member
If Gimbal is a glare from a jet exhaust, doesn't it have to be a big engine to completely mask the plane (a fighter, or a big commercial airliner) ? Is that consistent with the type of aircraft smugglers would use ?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I had the impression that this was a) a military exercise zone b) off the East coast of Florida.
b) places it off any direct kind of route between the US and a drug-producing country, and a) makes it even less likely for a drug aircraft to be there (at that flight level no less), and more likely for a non-identifying friendly craft to be there as part of some exercise (or a non-identifying hostile spycraft, as UAPTF justifies its budget).
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If Gimbal is a glare from a jet exhaust, doesn't it have to be a big engine to completely mask the plane (a fighter, or a big commercial airliner) ? Is that consistent with the type of aircraft smugglers would use ?
It just needs to be hot. Here's a T-45 type plane

a-us-navy-t-45-goshawk-trainer-jet-launches-from-the-flight-deck-of-the-nimitz-0be521-1600.jpg
 

Hougenai

New Member
It strikes me as a bias to only consider 'Narco -jets' as Non transponder aircraft.
A google search provides a series of legitimate reasons for non sqwuaking jets. eg equipment failure, pilot error, jets over a certain age aren't within the legislation and retrofit is not required, military.
 

Edward Current

Active Member
b) off the East coast of Florida. b) places it off any direct kind of route between the US and a drug-producing country
Venezuela, DR, Bahamas, and Georgia (all of which are mentioned in the stories linked above) fall on a line that passes off the coast of Jacksonville.

Screen Shot 2022-02-03 at 12.50.44 PM.png

a) makes it even less likely for a drug aircraft to be there (at that flight level no less)
If it was a restricted airspace (I haven’t been able to verify that it was), perhaps that’s why the pilots were so surprised to see something. Reading these articles, it doesn’t seem like drug runs are surgical operations where the pilots would know what routes to avoid. They use planes near the end of their life that they can buy cheap, and the planes are badly maintained and crash a lot. Sometimes they set fire to the plane on the tarmac just before making a getaway.
 

dimebag2

Active Member
@Mick West : sorry this is a bit off-topic but what is the source of this video ? It's a great example of an infrared glare from a jet engine, I'd like to know more about it. Is the instrument comparable to the ones they have on Navy fighters ?
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
@Mick West : sorry this is a bit off-topic but what is the source of this video ? It's a great example of an infrared glare from a jet engine, I'd like to know more about it. Is the instrument comparable to the ones they have on Navy fighters ?
Looks like Star SAFIRE which is a MWIR camera like the one in ATFLIR iirc
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
@Mick West : sorry this is a bit off-topic but what is the source of this video ? It's a great example of an infrared glare from a jet engine, I'd like to know more about it. Is the instrument comparable to the ones they have on Navy fighters ?
it somewhere in this thread.. but at 21 pages you are on your own for original link. Micks's video in OP might tell you source .......edit add: it does around 00:58 mark.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ny...-navy-jet-encounter-with-unknown-object.9333/
1643920526775.png
 

dimebag2

Active Member
Thanks a lot @deirdre
So it comes from Dave Falch, If I remember right there was a dispute about it... Anyway, back to the topic, sorry for interfering.
 

flarkey

Senior Member
Here's a thought.... We know that Gimbal was coincidentally filmed on the same day (21 January 2015) as an Atlas rocket launch from Kennedy Space Centre. Could the object in the video be one of the NASA WB-57 high altitude research aircraft that can be used to video the launch from the air....?


Thread 'Could The Gimbal Video Show an Atlas V Launch?' https://www.metabunk.org/threads/could-the-gimbal-video-show-an-atlas-v-launch.12078/



bttzq8hdwfd41.jpg

Source: https://youtu.be/HGmHf0UYyps


Source: https://youtu.be/riU3DZmU-jE

Edit: added links to the Atlas thread & the date
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Here's a thought.... We know that Gimbal was coincidentally filmed on the same day as an Atlas rocket launch from Kennedy Space Centre. Could the object in the video be one of the NASA WB-57 high altitude research aircraft that can be used to video the launch from the air....?

Thread 'Could The Gimbal Video Show an Atlas V Launch?' https://www.metabunk.org/threads/could-the-gimbal-video-show-an-atlas-v-launch.12078/

View attachment 49547

Source: https://youtu.be/HGmHf0UYyps


Source: https://youtu.be/riU3DZmU-jE
They'd possibly be on historical flight trackers right?

edit also that's a Canberra right?
 

Edward Current

Active Member
Here's a thought.... We know that Gimbal was coincidentally filmed on the same day (21 January 2015) as an Atlas rocket launch from Kennedy Space Centre. Could the object in the video be one of the NASA WB-57 high altitude research aircraft that can be used to video the launch from the air....?
Since it was flying below ~22,000 feet, I suppose it could have been heading back to Kennedy (i.e., away from the off-Jacksonville area). And if it was descending at 3° slope, it could have been a bit farther away than the 30 NM straight-and-level case.
 

Murray

New Member
Slightly off topic....whoever the superior officer was that Fravor reported his encounter to thought he likely witnessed a drug interdiction exercise.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
My guess still, is that it was a drone. Just as the Pilot/WSO says in the Gimbal video

Good chance it happened during or around the time they were doing Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX)

https://news.usni.org/2015/01/12/upgraded-carrier-roosevelt-starts-pre-deployment-exercises

"USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) shipped out on Jan. 8 to begin its Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX) with the ship’s of its carrier strike group (CSG) to test the ships’ crew and equipment against a variety of threats.

[COMPTUEX] is designed to replicate real world combat scenarios that can potentially present themselves to our strike group at any time during a deployment,” said Capt. Scott F. Robertson, commanding officer of guided missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG-60), in a statement from the service.
“We are going to experience real combat situations from all angles, there will be training evaluations from a hostile ship boarding, submarine attacks, and enemy ships or vessels trying impede their justice upon our strike group.”


I understand project NEMISIS was also tested around that time

And the USS Roosevelt had been testing the Northdrop Grumman X-47B which seems to have been a part of NEMISIS. A project that involved drone fleets

RE: NEMISIS -> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...e-capability-will-change-naval-combat-forever


1644575751549.png

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n56_H9KN7eI
 
Last edited:

DavidB66

Active Member
Slightly off topic....whoever the superior officer was that Fravor reported his encounter to thought he likely witnessed a drug interdiction exercise.
Different case, as has been pointed out, but interesting for the 'tic-tic' incident if it is new information. I don't recall seeing it before, but I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of that case. Do you have a source for it?
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
It should also be noted that Elizondo's video request form for the GoFast, Gimbal and Tic Tac videos referred to them in the description as UAV/UAS and Balloon footage. His email trail talking about getting the videos released also mentions UAV from memory.
 

Murray

New Member
It's very off topic as Fravor had nothing to do with gimbal.
Never said he did. Merely pointed out an interesting anecdote from a similar event related to the op's theory.

Different case, as has been pointed out, but interesting for the 'tic-tic' incident if it is new information. I don't recall seeing it before, but I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of that case. Do you have a source for it?

I don't have the document handy but I believe it was mentioned in one of the official government released documents detailing the event, so it should be easy to find. Basically, no one hearing Fravor's story seemed too concerned over it at the time.
 

Ulrich

Member
It should also be noted that Elizondo's video request form for the GoFast, Gimbal and Tic Tac videos referred to them in the description as UAV/UAS and Balloon footage. His email trail talking about getting the videos released also mentions UAV from memory.
I think Elizondo already explained this in his interview with Mick. He said, he used usual language and usual categories there. Something like that.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
I think Elizondo already explained this in his interview with Mick. He said, he used usual language and usual categories there. Something like that.


And you believe that?



BTW, I asked Alex Dietrich when she first met Elizondo. She replied with an email from Lue dated Aug 30th. If you remember , his resignation letter stated that his resignation was to be effective Oct 4th. So as he was on the way out to start a job with TTSA, that's when he reaches out to Alex. Despite being with AATIP for ~ 10 years.
 
Last edited:

Ulrich

Member
And you believe that?



BTW, I asked Alex Dietrich when she first met Elizondo. She replied with an email from Lue dated Aug 30th. If you remember , his resignation letter stated that his resignation was to be effective Oct 4th. So as he was on the way out to start a job with TTSA, that's when he reaches out to Alex. Despite being with AATIP for ~ 10 years.
Ok. He reached out to Alex, when he wanted to leave AATIP. And? What does that mean or prove? It is legitimate to do so.

And yes, of course I believe him. Even if you assume that all of the UFO-cases are something like fairytales or illusions. Even then it is obvious that in former times pentagon and military did not categorize controversial videos and pictures to the topic “UFO“ or “UAP“. Even if they did not have any clue what kind of object they were facing.

So years ago it was logical to search for “Ballons“, “UAV“ and stuff like that.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Ok. He reached out to Alex, when he wanted to leave AATIP. And? What does that mean or prove? It is legitimate to do so.

And yes, of course I believe him. Even if you assume that all of the UFO-cases are something like fairytales or illusions. Even then it is obvious that in former times pentagon and military did not categorize controversial videos and pictures to the topic “UFO“ or “UAP“. Even if they did not have any clue what kind of object they were facing.

So years ago it was logical to search for “Ballons“, “UAV“ and stuff like that.
The question of when Alex met Elizondo is an attempt to ascertain the extent of any investigation of the incident or otherwise by AATIP, if Elizondo only spoke to Dietrich as he was leaving to go to TTSA. What does that tell us about any investigation they did? That they didn't speak to one of the main witnesses, that they didn't have access?
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Ok. He reached out to Alex, when he wanted to leave AATIP. And? What does that mean or prove? It is legitimate to do so.

And yes, of course I believe him. Even if you assume that all of the UFO-cases are something like fairytales or illusions. Even then it is obvious that in former times pentagon and military did not categorize controversial videos and pictures to the topic “UFO“ or “UAP“. Even if they did not have any clue what kind of object they were facing.

So years ago it was logical to search for “Ballons“, “UAV“ and stuff like that.




Look at one of his emails. He is clearly talking about drones as in actual drones and balloons. Interesting that he also atttached the gofast vid

1645014673836.png
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
My guess still, is that it was a drone. Just as the Pilot/WSO says in the Gimbal video
It seems there was a debate maybe before the video starts as it opens with "it is a fucking drone bro" so one of the operators seems to think so.
So...if "it's a fucking drone bro" does NOT mean:

"Wow look at the crazy way that thing is maneuvering, it's a radical Chinese/Russian/alien super drone!"

as many see to think, rather it can be interpreted as:

"That's one of our X47Bs over there." Basically a smallish un-maned jet.

Then the crew is well a where of what they're seeing and this really is, or was, much ado about nothing. Until TTSA released it and made a big deal about the strange way it seems to move. Something related to the gimbal largely explained on other threads here on the forum.

Look at one of his emails. He is clearly talking about drones as in actual drones
It would also imply that Elizondo was also well a where that this is just a known X47B, or at least it's very possible. Note that the email makes no mention of AATIP, despite Elizondo being referred to in the past, as the head of it.
Despite being with AATIP for ~ 10 years.
Except he wasn't, not officially. As we've discussed elsewhere, he had no funding, no contract and therefore no position at the Pentagon related to UAPs and such. It seemed more of a UFO club that met after work on occasion.

Lacatski, who apparently did run AAWSAP with or for Bigelow says as much in his book.

Skinwalkers in the Pentagon: An Insiders’ Account of the Secret Government UFO Program
by James T. Lacatski, Colm A. Kelleher and George Knapp

Yes, the name AATIP was a nickname for AAWSAP for certain security reasons that we’ve put into the book. But the difference between AAWSAP with the nickname AATIP at DIA, and AATIP at the Pentagon is quite distinct. AAWSAP had $22 million of funding. It covered military and civilian UFOs, yielding a massive database. It also had a main contract and sub contracts. Now AATIP in the Pentagon, as described in the articles, was basically zero funded, looked at specific military UFO encounters and very important ones because they had film and it had no contract. So getting back to how did this mix up occur, I think it’s not deliberate. It’s not due to authors, to television personalities, etc. It’s the fact we were running not a an official SAP, but a closed program. I can tell you for a fact that within my own office, they did not know, except leadership that this contract was being run. They had no idea whatsoever. Our security was that tight. And also, the fact is, is that, well, I guess that pretty much says it. That’s that’s that’s the best example I can give.
Content from External Source
https://www.mysterywire.com/ufo/skinwalkers-inside-the-pentagon/

As said by Edward:
I guess a drone is even more mundane than a drug plane.
And fits Occoms razor. The crew of an F18 on a training flight see, and correctly identify, a friendly military UAV. It happens to "appear" strange in a video because of gimble lock.

It's latter that TTSA and Elizondo and others make a mystery out of it.
 

Ulrich

Member
The question of when Alex met Elizondo is an attempt to ascertain the extent of any investigation of the incident or otherwise by AATIP, if Elizondo only spoke to Dietrich as he was leaving to go to TTSA. What does that tell us about any investigation they did? That they didn't speak to one of the main witnesses, that they didn't have access?
Maybe she gave an extensive statement to other AATIP-Personal or AATIP used existing testimony she gave to military people.

Btw. Nice, that you have his emails. :D

Where can we get more of his email-account? It s good to know for the entire picture.
 
D

Deleted member 17326

Guest
So...if "it's a fucking drone bro" does NOT mean:

"Wow look at the crazy way that thing is maneuvering, it's a radical Chinese/Russian/alien super drone!"

as many see to think, rather it can be interpreted as:

"That's one of our X47Bs over there." Basically a smallish un-maned jet.

Then the crew is well a where of what they're seeing and this really is, or was, much ado about nothing. Until TTSA released it and made a big deal about the strange way it seems to move. Something related to the gimbal largely explained on other threads here on the forum.


It would also imply that Elizondo was also well a where that this is just a known X47B, or at least it's very possible. Note that the email makes no mention of AATIP, despite Elizondo being referred to in the past, as the head of it.

Except he wasn't, not officially. As we've discussed elsewhere, he had no funding, no contract and therefore no position at the Pentagon related to UAPs and such. It seemed more of a UFO club that met after work on occasion.

Lacatski, who apparently did run AAWSAP with or for Bigelow says as much in his book.

Skinwalkers in the Pentagon: An Insiders’ Account of the Secret Government UFO Program
by James T. Lacatski, Colm A. Kelleher and George Knapp

Yes, the name AATIP was a nickname for AAWSAP for certain security reasons that we’ve put into the book. But the difference between AAWSAP with the nickname AATIP at DIA, and AATIP at the Pentagon is quite distinct. AAWSAP had $22 million of funding. It covered military and civilian UFOs, yielding a massive database. It also had a main contract and sub contracts. Now AATIP in the Pentagon, as described in the articles, was basically zero funded, looked at specific military UFO encounters and very important ones because they had film and it had no contract. So getting back to how did this mix up occur, I think it’s not deliberate. It’s not due to authors, to television personalities, etc. It’s the fact we were running not a an official SAP, but a closed program. I can tell you for a fact that within my own office, they did not know, except leadership that this contract was being run. They had no idea whatsoever. Our security was that tight. And also, the fact is, is that, well, I guess that pretty much says it. That’s that’s that’s the best example I can give.
Content from External Source
https://www.mysterywire.com/ufo/skinwalkers-inside-the-pentagon/

As said by Edward:

And fits Occoms razor. The crew of an F18 on a training flight see, and correctly identify, a friendly military UAV. It happens to "appear" strange in a video because of gimble lock.

It's latter that TTSA and Elizondo and others make a mystery out of it.
We've got ATTIP birthed by AAWSAP which produced nothing of importance but the ambiguous Nimitz tapes; AWWSAP birthed by Crazy Harry Reid sole-sourcing $22M black dollars to his crony, big donor and fellow fringe science lover Bob Bigelow; Bob Bigelow owning Skinwalker Ranch, Skinwalker ranch tied to "research" about ley-lines, teleportation and tin-foil hats...This is not sensible. In my view there's nothing at all associated with AWWSAP or ATTIP (or the silly-ass Skinwalker Ranch) that would interest any serious investigator of UAP.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
We've got ATTIP birthed by AAWSAP which produced nothing of importance but the ambiguous Nimitz tapes; AWWSAP birthed by Crazy Harry Reid sole-sourcing $22M black dollars to his crony, big donor and fellow fringe science lover Bob Bigelow; Bob Bigelow owning Skinwalker Ranch, Skinwalker ranch tied to "research" about ley-lines, teleportation and tin-foil hats...This is not sensible. In my view there's nothing at all associated with AWWSAP or ATTIP (or the silly-ass Skinwalker Ranch) that would interest any serious investigator of UAP.
Yeah, I got a little off topic here. We talk about this more on this thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uaps-bigelow-and-the-invisible-college.11850/
 
Top